> Also the last time I saw a video about a low level language discussion, only Rust had a dev there nobody really knows. C++, D and Go had prominent people speaking for them.

They were each represented by a prominent member of their language design team. Its tragic that more people don't know of Niko Matsakis, but his blog is one of the best resources on the design of the Rust language: http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/

"Also the last time I saw a video about a low level language discussion, only Rust had a dev there nobody really knows. C++, D and Go had prominent people speaking for them."

That has nothing to do with anything.

"Rust is trying something new and Go tries to only use the stuff that worked in the past. It's no surprise that people favor Go instead of Rust."

That's a good point. Anyone doing something critical wants low risk. Using a proven tool or one with proven concepts is lower risk. Go's methods were proven in Pascal, Oberon, etc. So, Go is less risk.

Not to knock Rust in any way with the above. Might be safer in long run due to design and improving toolchain. However, there is a risk perception and a real issue of new concepts taking time to spot then eliminate problems. So, I encourage Rust for systems use on less critical stuff right now but was shocked Dropbox uses it in storage functions.

Rust is actually pretty conservative regarding "new stuff".

Every single feature of Rust, with the exception of the borrow checker, has been around since the 80s.

Even the borrow checker is based on linear / affine types that had been researched in other languages at least over a decade ago.