I'm not upvoting this toward the front page because, although the writer makes some smart observations, the piece largely doesn't apply to Rust due to key misconception:

"You know, it's like the "Chicken or the Egg" dilemma. On very rare occasions, this problem does get resolved (relatively representative examples are Go and Scala) - mostly thanks to investments of time and money from some large company (Google, Typesafe) who for some reason finds it worthy to popularize a new language."

Which is exactly what happened with Rust. A large company put significant resources into language, compiler, libraries, and community. Already meant his write-up didn't apply to Rust if that was a precondition of its truth. It then of exploded in usage and available code. It was also deployed at Dropbox for mission-critical apps. So, many things he says it will need to prove something are already there. Amazing thing is the article from 2015 was disproven by Rust ecosystem by 2016.