Ada had literally billions of dollars in contracts backing it, a detailed specification, multiple industrial-grade implementations, tooling companies betting livelihoods on it, and university engineering programs teaching it. How many of those does Rust have? Any? Ada fizzled.

I have not needed to know of any important programs coded in Rust in general use. Ripgrep does not qualify. Alacritty does not qualify. (Haskell has, anyway, Pandoc and Git-annex.) I guess fragments of Firefox are coded in it. I like that Firefox is less crashy than a decade ago, but I doubt Rust is responsible: I think sandboxing gets that credit.

It is possible that Rust could become important someday, but only if things are done to make it so, most particularly acting not to drive away, for readily fixable reasons, a large majority of people who try it out for the first time.

Certainly you misunderstood: more people pick up C++ for production use every week than the total employed today coding Rust. That will be true next year, too. More are employed coding Ada than Rust. More code Erlang than Rust. More code Forth than Rust. Rust is not "used widely" by any defensible definition.

It still seems possible that Rust could, someday, come to be used widely, beyond the HN echo chamber, but only with serious action. Wishful thinking has always reliably failed to drive mainstream language adoption.