struct Foo<'a, X: 'a> {

take a look at tha example. Just look at it! Are you redirecting from stdin and then redirecting to stdout? Or is this supposed to be C++ templates? 'a, X: a' is shell escaping, or what? The syntax is insane, and even if Rust lived up to all of your (plural) claims, how could I ever bring myself to program in something as hideous as that?

Some more syntax insanity which is Rust:

let path = Path::new("../word.lst");

let's map this to your target demographic again (me):

I first learned of "let" in BASIC. Path::new - so we're doing C++ now? C++ BASIC. And then there's "new", which means I'm instantiating an object. Do you seriously expect system programmers to start programming in an object oriented language, when it's clear to us that it's a horrible way to reason about data? (Hint: go back to the '50's and '60's, you'll find this wonderful paradigm called functional programming, which has a lovely sideeffect of being both stateless and reentrant. And then you'll discover this wonderful language called LISP.)

Err(why) => panic!("failed to open {}: {}", path.display(),

So what is this now, =>, SmallTalk? And exception handling! I. HATE. EXCEPTION. HANDLING. Why? Because if I'm using exception handling, it means that I was too lazy to do proper error checking and correction in the algorithm of my program! That is unacceptable for system programs, and frankly, for any type of a program.

Error::description(&why)),

Then all of a sudden, we're back to C++. C++ is an epic, colossal failure, precisely because of its complexity: it introduced more problems than it solved.

So Rust is a mish-mash of all these different syntaxes, and maps to zero in the C programmer's model and domain. When you (plural) embarked upon this project, didn't you know that if you want to replace something with something else, you have to map to your target audience's prior experience and knowledge?

And I still haven't addressed your claim (which you (plural) completely ignored too), that your language and the compiler, and the algorithms for memory management and safety have no flaws. That's the implication of a safe language, that the programmer's implementation of memory management is flawless! Where does Rust come from? Ah yes, from the Mozilla Firefox team. And do you know how badly Firefox runs on my Solaris 10 system? It crashes all the time, it's slow, and the latest version I have (45.5.1 ESR), the audio started cracking and popping. There is no way I'm going to trust the caliber of programmers who don't care about my platform and about code quality so as to release something like that (and that's not the first time).

We are not friends right now: your product is bad, and I don't trust you. And you (plural) are very aggressively pushing for replacing something simple which works (C) with your insane programming language. Between Rust and ANSI Common LISP, the choice is clear for me: anything that I can't implement in C, shell, or AWK, LISP is going to be my destination. Functional programming. Machine code when I'm done in the REPL. Metaprogramming. Stateless. Perfect. I'd just as soon program in Ada again, rather than Rust.

By the way, I watched your talk on Ruby and Rust[1]. After watching the amount of insanity you had to go through to print one line on stdout, I wanted to cut my veins and throw myself out of the window: I could have printed half of encyclopaedia Britannica in shell or AWK by that time. But that wasn't the worst part. The worst part was that you saw absolutely nothing wrong with all of that insanity, in fact you found it "cool".

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms3EifxZopg