>Its compilation is slow. I mean SLOW. Slower than C++. I know over years Rust became several times faster, but objectively we need it to be two orders of magnitude faster, not just two times.

Refactor your build.

>It’s complex. Just as complex as C++. But C++ had legacy and Rust had not. The complexity of forcing your way through the jungle of Arc<Mutex<Box<T>>> on every single step directly impacts the quality of the logic being implemented i.e. you can’t see the forest for the trees. Once again, C++ has the same problem, so what’s the point of the language switch in the end?

If you can come up with something better, write a macro for it.

>Memory safety is not that sacred. In fact, for many applications malfunctioning is better than crashing — particulary in the embedded world where Rust wants to be present. You cannot get 99.999% reliability with Rust — it crashes all the time.

Learn the language a bit better, use code coverage tools, and write better tests.

>When handling lots of mutable shared state (GUI, DB, stateful services, OS/hardware), the performance of native Rust memory model is subpar, and non-native unsafes just leave you with slow compilation, high complexity, and no memory safety in the end — which makes Rust practically meaningless for heavy mutable state jobs.

True for C++, too, if you don't implement things properly.