> There are many organizations and industries that will not adopt Rust until it has a standard.
Counterpoint: rust is doing fine without those organizations and industries. Why change what is working well?
Counterpoint: rust is doing fine without those organizations and industries. Why change what is working well?
Because Rust is a game changer.
Wouldn't it be better to have Rust used for the code that runs on automobiles and aircraft? Or you would prefer that they keep using (subsets of) C and C++?
Is the security of your Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices good enough or could they be better?
What do you have against Rust being used in more places and for more purposes?
This happened without a standard.
They created a specification for Ferrocene:
While it is technically not a Rust language standard, it serves a similar purpose for Ferrocene.
So if you want those orgs/industries to get memory safety via rust, you either need a standard, or to convince them to not require that.
It happens so often it became a meme at this point.
No, the meme is kept alive by C++ people who say that this happens without it actually happen. It happened a long time ago a few times, since then it's either an active discussion about languages, where for some reason talking about Rust is a problem, but every other language is okay or it's someone feeling attacked by the mere idea that projects which only could be done in C++ could now also be done by another language and starts crying about how the Rust community would flood every topic.
There's no longer an area where C++ is the only available option. Get over it. The rest of the world did a long time ago.