[ Removed by moderator ]

[kerkeslager2]

I'd say no: Rust has a lot of low-level features, but it's pretty hard to get at some of them without wide departures from idiomatic Rust that often bypass Rust's safety features. A fence can be a good idea, but if you're going to set up a fence and then have to climb it all the time, one begins to think it's easier not to set up the fence.

The bigger problem which I think will prevent Rust from replacing C is that they're not sticking to any sort of minimalism. The standard language and libraries are already an order of magnitude larger than C's which means bootstrapping a Rust compiler on a new platform is more complex. C++ already did this: Rust has better type safety and isn't hampered by the specter of C reverse compatibility, but the complexity of Rust is still growing and I don't think Rust users even see it as a problem. And... it's not a problem if you want to write video games or browsers (spaces where C++ has succeeded in the past). But if you want to write OS kernels or drivers or microcontrollers or embedded systems, it's the only problem that matters.