That is besides the lacking of the standard lib the second most important point why our team decided against Rust.

How many percent of all errors are memory safety errors? Why did Google choose C/C++ for Fuchsia after evaluating also Rust? How come, Actix announced a new version with memory leaks fixed?

> How many percent of all errors are memory safety errors?

They did not release those numbers.

> Why did Google choose C/C++ for Fuchsia after evaluating also Rust?

A couple of things here:

* We don't actually know if they did evaluate Rust for the kernel or not.

* At the time they would have been making that evaluation, Rust was one year past 1.0, and was significantly less mature than it is now.

* They had a bunch of people who had experience with existing kernels that were in C and C++, and in fact, based Zircon on one of them: LK.

All of these are good reasons to pick what they picked. However, there's one more thing here, and that's that Fuchsia is a microkernel, and so the kernel is a lot smaller than in other OSes. Rust is used for a bunch of components that would be in the kernel if Fuchsia was a monolithic kernel.

> How come, Actix announced a new version with memory leaks fixed?

Well, first of all, memory leaks aren't a memory safety issue, so this would be irrelevant. However, Actix had actual memory safety issues as well, and did fix those. This happened because the author used a lot of unsafe that they didn't need to. This is pretty straightforward though; it was easy to find those issues because of the way that Rust works, and then they were fixed. That's kind of the point!

>> Rust is an overwhelmingly better language than Java or Go

100% agreed

>> and the world would be a better place if Rust were to displace them.

Rust needs a standard lib like Go or ecosystem like Java. Production stuff needs to be stable. Especially Go gets this right.

Rust with a standard lib like Go could rule the business apps world. But Rust doesn't even include an async runtime. It's not a problem, if Rust wants to stay in the niche where it is. Also, Rust advocates should not wonder why the adoption in the general purpose web space is far below its potential.

Rust's typesystem really makes it a great fit for business applications. Totally agree. Kotlin comes close, though.

Rust itself is production ready, but not the ecosystem.

That matchtes my observations.

There's no doubt that Rust as a language checks all the marks (the complexity of Rust is IMO unavoidable providing such a feature set).

What most discussions about the greatness of Rust miss:

1. Not language features, but teams and processes make successful projects.

2. Stability, matureness and a great standard lib like Go or ecosystem like Java beat language features.

Rust is a great playground for enthusiasts. But for your production apps you're probably better advised to use the boring stack.