Just a small clarification here. The author isn’t just a fan of Rust. Steve was a member of the Rust Core Team for years and was co-author of the book “The Rust Programming Language,” which is the main recommended introductory text for the language.
I saw the authors credentials and I do respect them a lot. But to be fair, I'm sure the person who wrote the Go manual could have written the same blog post with the same outlook for the future only with Go in place of Rust. I'm trying to broaden the scope of conversation to a more holistic one, rather than just "this is our chance to take over the world!"
Like my Gotek USB emulator reference. The device costs $50, and it's pretty much the ONLY option you have for emulating a floppy drive with a USB stick in a bunch of obsolete hardware. The software that it comes with was written by a Chinese high school student in C++ during a study break and it is about as insecure and sketchy as you would expect it to be.
If you're the government looking to buy this, your choices are;
1. Buy this sketchy retroft device that is insecure and may be backdoored for a cost of $60.
2. Replace whatever needs the retrofit for a cost of $2m.
3. Write your own drivers for $100k.
Currently they just use the $60 device. The upcoming policy changes will take that option off the table for a lot of agencies, forcing them to make wiser purchasing decisions. It doesn't automatically mean Rust wins the day, or that rust deserves to win the day. It means intelligent conversations must be had and difficult decisions have to be made that used to get avoided.
Go has absolutely zero interesting properties here. It has a shitty, inexpressive type system, dangerous concurrency, brain-dead error handling. It is a managed language, which provided memory-safety for many many decades now.
