Dunno what you mean. I like Rust. I think it’s by far the best language in its niche, which contains exactly two languages: Rust and C++.
If what you’re doing doesn’t fit into that niche, that’s fine! Don’t use Rust.
Who is forcing anyone to do anything?
If I was doing something high level, I would probably use Ocaml which has nicer features. If I wanted to write safe code, Ada offers a better experience with the availability of SPARK for parts I would probably end up wanting to prove. If I just want to write concurrent code with the certainty I could find someone to maintain it, Go seems the way to go.
Rust seems to want to be a replacement for Ada but seems to actually attract programmers used to high level language chasing the hype.
What’s the story with Rust and verification nowadays?
It is in progress but likely several years to go before a MVP is released. Ferrocene [1] is the primary effort that I am aware of and that seems to be making progress towards a verified rustc suitable for safety critical work.
Ferrous Systems is working with AdaCore and just released the Ferrocene Language Specification [2] to formally document the Rust subset that Ferrocene will use.
[1] https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/
[2] https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/ferrocene-language-specific...
HPC, HFT, GPGPU, LLVM/GCC infrastructure, GUI, console SDKs, drivers SDKs, security certification ,....
I not not seeing Fermilab or CERN doing real time beam processing in Julia anytime soon.
Or stuff like having graphical shader debugging tools for Julia.
Gotta say SPARK does seem to provide much of what it claims. Interesting that NVIDIA seemed to be using it for their secure bits.
"From the data obtained, we can make the following key observations. First, there are 9 out of 72 rules for which violations were observed that perform significantly better (α = 0.05) than a random predictor at locating fault-related lines. The true positive rates for these rules range from 24-100%. Second, we observed a negative correlation between MISRA rule violations and observed faults. In addition, 29 out of 72 rules had a zero true positive rate. Taken together with Adams' observation that all modifications have a non-zero probability of introducing a fault, this makes it possible that adherence to the MISRA standard as a whole would have made the software less reliable."
[1] https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:646de5ba...
Currently Rust is not as complete or well defined as Ada/SPARK or MISRA C/C++ combined with commercial analyzers (Astree for example). At the same time Rust is "too sound and rigorous" for mainstream programmers.
Rust advocates are in the losing battle of of forcing mainstream to adopt "it does not compile unless computer says its ready" style. Reliability and soundness comes with a cost.
Most software is not worth of the cost. When you adopt subscription model, fixing bugs is where the money is. If your app works flawlessly without updates, Apple removes it after few years.