Just because you have tiny pieces being written in it doesnt mean its getting adopted. Its way too cumbersome to write entire OS in it - all the example projects like AWS Firecracker end up with tons of unsafes. And its runtime components for dynamic memory stuff eat into efficiency.
Basically a more expansive and possibly ML powered valgrind can easily offer the same memory safety as Rust does, without the penalty of slower development and efficiency hits, so Rust adoption is "unstable" i.e its just a nice improvement but not does not give a hard advantage in any form and way.
> all the example projects like AWS Firecracker end up with tons of unsafes.
That's a good thing. With rust you are explicit about unsafe.
> Basically a more expansive and possibly ML powered valgrind can easily offer the same memory safety as Rust does, without the penalty of slower development and efficiency hits
It is apparent that you have no experience from rust, and I wonder if you have used valgrind much too, as you seem unaware about the huge overhead from running your app through valgrind.
Rust's error messages are precise, while valgrind is a crapshow to work with, as you should know since you mentioned it?
> so Rust adoption is "unstable" i.e its just a nice improvement but not does not give a hard advantage in any form and way.
It's used in production in several high profile projects, some that I already mentioned. Apparently smart people do see advantages.
Basically a more expansive and possibly ML powered valgrind can easily offer the same memory safety as Rust does, without the penalty of slower development and efficiency hits, so Rust adoption is "unstable" i.e its just a nice improvement but not does not give a hard advantage in any form and way.