> A language that is touted as "difficult to learn" and "difficult to onboard" is by definition not built for maintaining
PL learnability alone is not significant as a factor for a PL to be chosen for a certain task, unless it is impossibly hard. Rust, looking at the growing community, is not a PL that is impossibly hard to learn.
A PL is chosen for a certain task for its features. The same as any other class of tool, "A is chosen for X because of A's feature".
The learning curve is simply the side-effect of the PL's minimum features need to be learnt for it to work. Rust being a low-level language + an extra layer of protection is inherently hard.
But let's see how it fares in 10 years. There have been successful projects built on Rust, firecracker, figma, discord, and many more, despite it being so young.
PL learnability alone is not significant as a factor for a PL to be chosen for a certain task, unless it is impossibly hard. Rust, looking at the growing community, is not a PL that is impossibly hard to learn.
A PL is chosen for a certain task for its features. The same as any other class of tool, "A is chosen for X because of A's feature".
The learning curve is simply the side-effect of the PL's minimum features need to be learnt for it to work. Rust being a low-level language + an extra layer of protection is inherently hard.
But let's see how it fares in 10 years. There have been successful projects built on Rust, firecracker, figma, discord, and many more, despite it being so young.