However, there are many cases when Rust is not a good tool for the job, and when specifically having greater manual control of memory or thread safety is a better choice. Additionally, in many applications you can build almost everything in a fully dynamically typed language, often interpreted as well, and only choose small sections of code to target for a specialized compiled implementation.

In those cases, avoiding the overhead of a compiler and using rapid unit tests with high coverage as an alternative to compiler checks may often be a far safer and superior way to develop code, leading to adequately safe and performant code that is easier to maintain, faster to create, easier to explain, etc.

All I’m saying is that Rust is another tool in the toolbox. It’s not intrinsically or unilaterally better than any other tool, and other tools can inhabit parts of trade-off space that make them better choices than Rust, even for applications that need memory safety or high performance.

In my experience though, most interactions with Rust community leave me feeling like a vocal and significant fraction are trying to seriously claim that Rust is categorically and unilaterally a better choice across almost all possible use cases, let alone across a wide range of practical use cases.