I've sort of thought this too. Rust adoption feels a lot like Haskell to me in that it's centered around ideological things that don't really improve the final product and arguably slow development. If your goal is to write a bunch of LLM code there are better languages than rust, and rust development is often regarded as too annoy for anyone not enthusiastic about the ideological improvements.
There are cool ideas in the language but I don't see it enduring over time.
I like Rust and I'm an advocate of Rust, but this really isn't true (at least it hasn't been and I doubt much has significantly changed).
The syntax complexity and the ecosystem haven't been ideal for LLM development. And there have been publications on findings of LLM efficacy with different languages. Rust is most often towards the lower end of efficiency/correctness when benchmarked.
This paper uses models that are over a year old at this point. Many people didn't believe that LLMs were worth using for programming until 6 months after that, and now again this week we've had another huge leap in abilities.
This is beyond the other issues with the methodology of this study. For example, their Rust code was created by asking Deepseek to port their C++ code, not having it try and write Rust itself.
From what I am seeing in big corp, with low code/no code tooling, coupled with agentic orchestration, for many scenarios the actual programming language will become irrelevant.
Sure the programming platform still needs to be programming in something, but everything else on top will migrate to such tools.
This might not come to all corners of programming, but in the domain of orchestrating SaaS products, with MCP tools replacing classical microservices, it is getting there already in 2026.
There are cool ideas in the language but I don't see it enduring over time.