I've used rust extensively and my opinion mirrors the parent comment precisely.
Safety is a cool feature, but Rust is more than just safety, and pitching it as 'rust is safe' when it's not (and, often, it's not...) and when people dont care about that, doesn't convince people.
There are a lot of people who blog about rust, and almost invariably the 'killer feature' they come up with is safety.
It's not the killer feature; it's the side effect of strong memory management without a GC on an excellent general purpose programming language.
We could certainly do with more posts about how great and practical rust is, what the state of rust tooling is, and what great rust libraries there are with no mention at all of safety.
(... because safety is a cool technical feature; but the others; tooling, libraries and productivity are active barriers to adoption)
Safety is a cool feature, but Rust is more than just safety, and pitching it as 'rust is safe' when it's not (and, often, it's not...) and when people dont care about that, doesn't convince people.
There are a lot of people who blog about rust, and almost invariably the 'killer feature' they come up with is safety.
It's not the killer feature; it's the side effect of strong memory management without a GC on an excellent general purpose programming language.
We could certainly do with more posts about how great and practical rust is, what the state of rust tooling is, and what great rust libraries there are with no mention at all of safety.
(... because safety is a cool technical feature; but the others; tooling, libraries and productivity are active barriers to adoption)