I think Rust is already incredibly successful for what it is.
Rust isn't aiming to replace Ruby or TypeScript. Rust is focused on being a high-performance systems programming language. It makes big sacrifices to avoid having a garbage collector, VM, or other significant runtime dependency. For maybe 99% of programs having a GC or VM is perfectly fine, and you have lots of nice languages to choose from there. But Rust focuses specifically on areas where Ruby and TypeScript are poor choices or even entirely impossible to use.
Rust's popularity has already surpassed other C/C++ alternatives like Ada, D, Nim, Pascal, Cyclone, Checked-C, Zig, and depending how you measure, even Objective-C. It is already confirmed to be in the next Linux release. None of the previous C killers got even close.
I know the direction Rust is targeting. I wasn’t implying that it means to replace ruby or typescript. I was just pointing out the massive adoption of those (or other) languages in what it seems the same time span.
I also know there are differences and that the C/C++ crowd is more difficult to convince.
Rust isn't aiming to replace Ruby or TypeScript. Rust is focused on being a high-performance systems programming language. It makes big sacrifices to avoid having a garbage collector, VM, or other significant runtime dependency. For maybe 99% of programs having a GC or VM is perfectly fine, and you have lots of nice languages to choose from there. But Rust focuses specifically on areas where Ruby and TypeScript are poor choices or even entirely impossible to use.
Rust's popularity has already surpassed other C/C++ alternatives like Ada, D, Nim, Pascal, Cyclone, Checked-C, Zig, and depending how you measure, even Objective-C. It is already confirmed to be in the next Linux release. None of the previous C killers got even close.