> We've also seen a _tremendous_ amount of interest from people who don't strongly identify as a 'systems programmer' at present.

Can't underline this enough, as a long time WebDev with a lot of JavaScript, Python and Lua experience, Rust really feels like a door opener into the bare metal* world.

Especially as a Node Dev I felt right at home with Cargo. And as someone who only rarely touches C/C++, having the compiler scream at me for the first 10 days or so was probably the best "tutorial" about memory management and ownership I've ever "read" :) Rust really made me think a lot deeper about who / where and when stuff will be owned and eventually destroyed.

Overall, the language, cargo and everything around them fit so well together, learning it has been a real joy so far :)

* Well I've also done Z80 assembler on GameBoy before but that's probably not what people today would consider "bare metal" these days.

For me it's not really the freedom. I already said that elsewhere, but: I don't mind when the compiler yells at me. I just don't like the compiler to criticize my coding style by default. Initially, I liked Rust because it reminded me of C++. But then I began reading the book and basically it was full of statements about the coding style I prefer (and will keep) being bad. That's an incredibly stupid reason, but it kind of keeps me away from the language. But it's also the fact that C++ still is very widespread and has tons of libraries.

I wouldn't say never, of course. I'm looking forward to using Rust. Just not now.

Every language has different idioms. In many cases, what works in C++ doesn't work in Rust. Generally, anything the book says is bad you should take as qualified to mean bad in the context of Rust programming, not programming at large.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear enough. I was primarily referring to code formatting. Spaces instead of tabs, for example, or not writing opening curly braces on separate lines. These things are a matter of taste and should be friendly recommended at best. Guidelines for idioms are important and should occur as early as possible in the book, so that's perfectly fine.

I don't think telling you how to format your code for a particular language is a bad thing. I am quite happy using { on a new line in C# but on the same line in JS, using underscore_separated_method_names in C and camelCasedMethodNames in Java. To me, once you've been round the block with more than one or two languages you can get used to whatever style, but using the style for the language that you're writing in is something you should try to do for other people who read your code.

Reading Java code that uses undercore_separated_method_names or C# code that uses camedCased immediately makes me think the author doesn't know what s/he's doing.