There's also some advocacy involved which many people obviously find distasteful. To me it's a bonus though: tell me why your tech choice makes a difference, I'll check and maybe learn it.
Anything wrong what that?
We don't need to re-stratify development so that only people with expensive computers with > 4 gigs of memory can compile what they run.
Now, by default the "cargo" build uses all CPU threads, so if you have a 32 core Threadripper then yes, running 64 simultaneous "rustc" compiles will use 6 or 7 gigabytes.
That's one of the reasons it was rejected in OpenBSD: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=151233345723889&w=2
"> 4 gigs of memory"
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fsrp=1&_nkw=computer&_sacat...
by my standards, $5 is not an "expensive computer".
and more to the point, the language has little to do with the compilation memory required. Firefox and Chrome require significantly more memory than that to compile nowadays; they passed the 4 GB mark that could be compiled on a 32-bit machine many years ago, and both Firefox and Chrome were written entirely in C++ at the time. furthermore, you can always enable swap. it'll be slow, but if you can't afford a $5 computer, you take what you can get.
There are fast implementations (C) and there are somewhat safe implementations (Python, Java, ...). If I were to place Rust in this hierarcy - it is both fast AND safe, and there's rarely a good reason to replace it, so you've software that's already at the top of the hierarcy. This means that the particular implementation is likely to be the one that doesn't get replaced.
"...in Rust" has a lot of implications other than being an exercise in marketing.