But sticking to “battle tested” means a local minima at times. For example, there’s no shortage of CVEs in OpenSSL’s past or future. It’s definitely “battle tested”. And yet, that doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t try to write something better.
Even if Rust wasn't able to eliminate whole swath of errors in C(++). And it is (Nulls and data races).
Rust has way better package manager, and actually works on Windows.
For example coreutils got rewritten in Rust. And got adopted by Yocto.
> community of competing package managers is a lateral, neither better nor worse.
While I understand your position, that's not my opinion. Having one way to build a package is a blessing. Having had to juggle Python's competitive package manager is a nightmare.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/python_environment_2x.png
Each one has slightly different usages and they are mostly compatible but then you run into edge cases.
-----
And lack of blessed libs is something I am strongly against.
Rust doesn't have standardized time lib and everyone is suffering for it.
It may be a good idea to replace, or not. We don't have enough data to decide.