Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Also the last time I saw a video about a low level language discussion, only Rust had a dev there nobody really knows. C++, D and Go had prominent people speaking for them." That has nothing to do with anything. "Rust is trying something new and Go tries to only use the stuff that worked in the past. It's no surprise that people favor Go instead of Rust." That's a good point. Anyone doing something critical wants lo…
> Go's methods were proven in Pascal, Oberon, etc. So, Go is less risk. Totally disagree. Rust's ideas are tweaks of decades-old research. These tweaks are what make it interesting and constitute research in their own right, but Go did that too with their tweaks to CSP and interfaces.
Whereas Rust uses a combination of proven primitives and exotic techniques to achieve its goals. The exotic stuff, integration strategy, and implementation are new territory that exposes a level of risk a tried-and-true method (eg knock-off Oberon) doesn't have. It's new and unfamiliar territory to programmers at large even if some methods were seen in academia (eg Cyclone). It must be shown to be effective in terms of daily usage, standard libraries, and tooling because it's such new and unfamiliar territory.
When it is, as I have confidence in the team(s), it will then have a different argument where it eliminates way more risks than it introduces. Already has it at application level if compiler is robust. Overall thing needs more deployment, though, so people can see if it lives up to it, how much, and in what scenarios. That's the risk perception I'm talking about. Right now, it's a big unknown to many outsiders compared to traditional languages and platforms.