[fiedzia]

> they are both system languages

Due to ability to work without stdlib, Rust is system language in a sense Go never will be, to the point Go authors withdrawn this definition.

> Is Rust really a suitable replacement for Go?

It depends on your requirements for the ecosystem. If you need compatibility with Go or Go libraries, than it's not a replacement.

Libraries and support aside, any program written in Go can be written in Rust (and going back to nostdlib, many programs written in Rust cannot be written in Go). If you have required libraries, I'd say it can be written comparably quickly and easy. For example you can have web service returning hello world in 10 lines of code or so in either.

They are popular in different circles, but that is mostly not related to technical abilities. For 99% of of applications, you could pick either one.

[Ericson2314]

Rust is overused where Haskell or OCaml is more appropriate, simply because it people prefer the general quality of it over more mainstream languages even at the cost of putting up with memory management minutiae. Simply put, one rarely every need to use Rust in a better world.

This is a good direction for Go, which will either lead to Go having a better ecosystem, or remove ideological barriers from people keeping on using Go.

[jbboehr]

> Rust is overused where Haskell or OCaml is more appropriate

Except then I'd have to learn Haskell or OCaml :) As a curly-bracket language programmer, Rust was much easier for me to get into and feels more like home.

[Ericson2314]

I found this closed-mindedness hard to understand -- I don't spend very much conscious thought on the syntax when programming at all -- but for people like you facebook made Reason ML https://reasonml.github.io/

Someone should port OCaml to the Go runtime with a good high-level FFI. It could really give the community a boost.