> I don't think that was a completely unfair reading of these statements. The implication is that Rust is "not a fit language" because it "cannot stand on its own" and therefore "will never replace unsafe languages".

I didn't intend this. The primary gripe I had was the grammar being complicated (and to be fair...not really available in an easy way). That means the places we are most likely see such bare metal shenanigans may not adopt it because they can't draft a XYZ Co. Compiler. This is a semi-common pattern with chip manufacturers.

The conversation diverged after that. Self-hosting is simply a signal that a language is "strong enough to stand on its own". That doesn't mean non-self hosted languages are bad. It just means you still need something else to bootstrap it. In the land of bare metal stuff like this matters.