Come on, Rust has been here 16 years and its market share is as good as Ada.
These evangelists are the major reason in addition to its stdlib is not dynamic-link friendly that pushed me away from learning Rust.
C++ has serious problems. Linus Torvalds agrees. Bryan Cantrill agrees. Many, many experienced systems programmers agree. Rust solves many of the problems with C++, as a systems programming language. That is the scope of my argument.
I am not really sure in the modern software development world what problem dynamic linking of stdlib solves, especially since so much of stdlib would be monomorphized and/or inlined. C++ with any level of templates is far more unfriendly to dynamic linking -- and again, that is the only language of comparison in scope for this article.
C++ ran on rockets to the space, Rust has not yet. I don't even know any major projects or products are done with Rust for the last 16 years.
"There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses".
Elsewhere you claim nothing is written of note is written in Rust, and I would be interested in knowing what you base this on. Either we have different definitions on what makes a project significant, or you just haven't seen them.
I do not know what level of market share you think would be needed for Rust to have been worth it, but given it was originally aimed at the ill-defined but somewhat niche "systems programming" space, and now it is being used up and down different layers of the tech stack I would call it a success of adoption.