a) No one wants to use a "minor" language, so it will never get traction

b) It's slow (citation: the Benchmarks Game)

c) Static and dynamic analysis can find anything anyways, so what's the point?

First off, anyone who is seriously citing the Benchmarks Game as to making a definitive declaration of whether a language is slow or fast is intellectually dishonest. It's a game (as its name illustrates), so it reflects more the effort that people put in to try to optimize code rather than a comparison of "idiomatic" code. A case in point: the fastest program in C uses SSE intrinsics for its implementation.

Given that they're selling a static analyzer, I would expect them to make the case for analysis. However, it's worth addressing the limitations. Almost no project has 100% test coverage, and even having test coverage isn't necessarily a cure for having no problems (IOC still found undefined overflows in SQLite, which is the only open source project I know of to have 100% line and branch coverage in their test suite). To my knowledge, there still exists no tools that can identify strict-aliasing violations or ODR violations. It's also worth minding Dijkstra's aphorism: testing cannot prove the absence of bugs, only their presence. Static analysis in C/C++ has to face the additional problem of the inability to write a precise pointer analysis--something that Rust's type-safety would fix.