An many companies are now turning from C/C++ to Rust for some of the reasons above, but more importantly because of serious security problems and the very huge difficulty to assess it correctly in C/C++ code, despite of massive efforts. And Rust is recognized to be very solid, and very performant and very well written. It is now a serious competitor to C/C++.
However it does not use garbage collection (but this makes it suitable for many embedded devices) which can still be implemented as an add-on library which is already there (allowing to implement _javascript_, Python, Java, PHP or Lua without necessarily using their own integrated garbage collector, or allowing to implement an hypervisor capable of supporting guest OSes in VMs).
And now it has gained serious supporters, including Microsoft to build it in Windows (including for the kernel and kernel-level or user-level drivers) and make it the best language for UWP apps, or applications servers (also supported by Google), and with string support also by Mozilla (notably in Firefox). It has proven to be very well ported
(even if there was an unprecendented bug regression in Rust 1.46 about nested closures causing exponential compilation time, this did not affect the already compiled apps, but could affect the software updates for apps written for it if Rust was updated; such bug is very exceptional, as regressions are very rare; it mostly affects some programs using framework libraries based on generic datatypes with an unbound/unckecked level of nesting, i.e. bad softwares using too many levels of abstraction and not implemening a sandboxing type to expose a limited but tested useful subset so that the implementation can be more easily replaced without lot of dependencies and lot of recompilations needed for each minor patch or evolution in apps).
I would hope Lua to have the same level of testing that Rust has, and as much support from major organizations with various focus including in the opensource area.
