(Diesel is nowhere near the ergonomicity of Django for example.)
Which sure technically it can, but atm I think it's a only appropriate when you have an army of developers at some money printing company that go and write all your dependencies
To answer the above question, like cli tools
Rust introduces unsafe code (at a minimum through crates). The rust community hates that people use C++ when they could use a memory safe language, so why are they introducing memory unsafe to something that a GC works fine?
It’s like their opinion of memory safety as a necessity totally flips the second rust is the unsafe one.
*assuming no outside bugs such as CPU bugs, bugs in the GC, or bugs in an unsafe block
Why replace C++ then? After all, rust is just as unsafe by your definition.
Having a language that is default safe and can only be unsafe in rare situations is way better than one that lets libraries write unsafe code, which is better than a language with no safe boundary.
Rust let’s you write unsafe code, that’s so different than say python.
An example that comes to mind is data reduction pipelines for the bytes coming out of a major telescope, like that of LSST. I worked on those pipelines, and a lot of the effort was around figuring out how to consistently build the dang thing given the looseness of Python's systems. An equally large amount of the effort was on trying to eke out the performance of Python via Numpy tricks, Numba, etc, which impinged readability and maintainability.
In some places, we fall back on a C++ core, but nobody is happy about that, for all the usual reasons. Some of us advocated for Rust... but it was never really plausible, because the interactions with Python numerical and scientific libraries are so immature. People are starting to work on it but it's hard to compete with the decades of work put into C++ and Python as the core of scientific stacks.
