For my hobby code, I'm not going to start writing Rust anytime soon. My code is safe enough and I like C as it is. I don't write software for martian rovers, and for ordinary tasks, C is more ergonomic than Rust, especially for embedded tasks.

For my work code, it all comes down to SDKs and stuff. For example I'm going to write firmware for Nordic ARM chip. Nordic SDK uses C, so I'm not going to jump through infinite number of hoops and incomplete rust ports, I'll just use official SDK and C. If it would be the opposite, I would be using Rust, but I don't think that would happen in the next 10 years.

Just like C++ never killed C, despite being perfect replacement for it, I don't believe that Rust would kill C, or C++, because it's even less convenient replacement. It'll dilute the market, for sure.

> Just like C++ never killed C, despite being perfect replacement for it

I think c++ didn't replace C because it is a bad language. It did not offer any improvements on the core advantages of C.

Rust however does. It's not perfect, but it has a substantially larger chance of "replacing" C, if that ever happens.