It is a clear mandate on those companies that whatever used to be C or C++, should be written in Rust for green field development.

Whatever could be done in programming languages with automatic memory management was already being done.

Anyone deploying serverless code into Amazon instances is running of top of Firecracker, my phone has Rust code running on it, and whatever Windows 11 draws something into the screen, it goes through Rust rewrite of the GDI regions logic, all the Azure networking traffic going through Azure Boost cards does so via Rust firmware.

Adobe is the sponsor for the Hylo programming language, and key figures in the C++ community, are doing Rust talks nowadays.

"Adobe’s memory safety roadmap: Securing creativity by design"

https://blog.adobe.com/security/adobes-memory-safety-roadmap...

Any hobby language author would like to have 1% of the said modest Rust's success, I really don't get the continuous downplay of such achievement.

> It is a clear mandate on those companies that whatever used to be C or C++, should be written in Rust for green field development. Whatever could be done in programming languages with automatic memory management was already being done.

I don't know how true either of these statements is or to what extent the mandate is enforced (at my company we also have language mandates, but what they mean is that to use a different language all you need is an explanation and a manager to sign off), but I'll ask acquaintances in those companies (Except Adobe; don't know anyone there. Although the link you provided doesn't say Rust; it says "Rust or Swift". It also commits only to "exploring ways to reduce the use of new C and C++ code in safety critical parts of our products to a fraction of current levels").

What I do know is that the rate at which Rust is adopted, is significantly lower than the rate at which C++, Java, C#, Python, TS, and even Go were adopted, even in those companies.

Now, there's no doubt that Rust has some real adoption, and much more than just hobby languages. Its rate of adoption is significantly higher than that of Haskell, or Clojure, or Elixir were (but lower than that of Ruby or PHP). That is without a doubt a great accomplishment, but not what you'd expect from a language that wishes to become the successor to C++ (and doesn't suffer from lack of hype despite its advanced age). Languages that offer a significant competitive advantage, or even the perception of one, spread at a faster pace, certainly those that eventually end up in the top 5.

I also think there's little doubt that the Rust "base" is more enthusiastic than that of any language I remember except maybe that of Haskell's resurgence some years back (and maybe Ruby), and that enthusiasm may make up for what they lack in numbers, but at some point you need the numbers. A middle-aged language can only claim to be the insurgent for so long.

>>It is a clear mandate on those companies that whatever used to be C or C++, should be written in Rust for green field development. >>Any hobby language author would like to have 1% of the said modest Rust's success, I really don't get the continuous downplay of such achievement.

This is a political achievement, not technical one. People are bitter about it as it doesn't feel organic and feel pushed onto them.