[kkimdev]

I fully agree with you, and actually I want to write a summary of those less-discussed features that have high productivity impact including the predictability you mentioned in the future.

Though, for the people who haven't explored Rust yet, I still think that focusing on the memory safety, the most powerful feature, is a good approach. Personally I tried explaining other smaller benefits first, e.g., immutable by default, move by default, no header files, but didn't work well as I thought. Exploring another language is a significant investment, and people need a significant reason (at least those that appear to be at first glance).

[estebank]

And there is a small marketing problem for Rust. The memory management is the big ticket thing we like to show off, but the big benefits of the language are much smaller and boil down to quality of life and composability.

[ncmncm]

Yes, banging on about memory safety sells Rust short, and drives away exactly the people who would benefit most from improved memory safety.

The language is just overwhelmingly better to code in than C, or Java, or C#, or Go. If the compiler were to be made fast -- and there is nothing like a fast compiler coded in your language to advertise its speed (and the reverse!) -- or anyway JITted, with a REPL, it could replace a great deal of scripting.

The comparison to C++ is much less compelling. Rust fans like to lump C and C++ together, but in modern C++ there are few temptations to memory unsafety. (They might be misled by crufty Mozilla code.) Meanwhile, the greater expressivity of C++ enables more powerful libraries, and each use of a good library eliminates many more than just memory bugs.