https://foundation.rust-lang.org/members/ just look at the companies that are a part of the foundation.
Headlines like the one on this submission makes me think "finally, someone has started to write that thing in a sensible language".
I'd rather use a click listener with TS/Kotlin/Swift than be forced into idiomatic Rust's architectural workarounds.
This project made the right call, using TS for the client.
I don't insist on everything being Rust. But it gets very close in many areas IMO.
A lot of the HN folks wage meaningless language wars that are a distraction from the actual success elements of Rust: namely that it removes a class of bugs by the mere virtue of your program compiling. Add to that a stellar quality and very dedicated community, sprinkle amazing tooling on top (semgrep filters, tree-sitter support, code-generation libraries) and it is a clear winner. Hence, "the writing on the wall" comment.
From HN and several other forums, plus a few companies I worked in, plus some meetups, I got the impression that the chief factor of slowing down Rust's adoption are a lot of C/C++ graybeards on influential positions that have an axe to grind against it and never bother to give actual technical arguments in a discussion. Unproductive and somewhat juvenile but hey, people being people.
That, plus the mind-boggling amount of C/C++ code that has to be rewritten should the world accept Rust as their successor is, shall we say, a very valid reason for its adoption to not be super fast. (And a fairly valid reason at that.) This problem sadly still exists. But with the Linux kernel starting to pay (some) attention to security problems, I have hope that such efforts will begin sooner rather than later.
It was a while ago, but I haven't asked around lately.
So a more apt comparison would be that you can use it on, say, 5 to 8 levels, and you could be absolutely fine on each of them.
It does require a bigger upfront investment for sure but it's not as big as many claim.