> it is best if they are written in a language which makes the developers more productive than Rust does.
AIUI, recent assessments (including by Google) have found that Rust developers' productivity is competitive with GC languages such as Go.
There's also plenty of reasons to think that a program that's first written in Rust will have fewer defects in the long run than the other languages you mentioned. Of course alternative languages may still have a role to play for quick-and-dirty, purely exploratory coding, but that's about it.
True, but it is my understanding that in those cases they were reimplementing existing services, where the precise requirements are already known. Exploration isn’t for quick-and-dirty programs, but for finding the right solution in a wide space of possibilities where you don’t even know what all the requirements are yet.
For example, consider programming a game. If your only concern is putting triangles on the screen, then there are some well-known solutions that you can adopt that will work great and you can do that in any language you want. But gameplay mechanics are a different beast entirely; inventing (or discovering) something new and fun is exploratory. You’ll benefit most from a dynamic language where you can change your code rapidly, and features like strict typing and lifetimes are not so helpful. For this a language like Common Lisp, with garbage collection, a REPL, gradual typing, just-in-time compilation, and support for multiple programming paradigms is ideal. Or Javascript, or whatever.
AIUI, recent assessments (including by Google) have found that Rust developers' productivity is competitive with GC languages such as Go.
There's also plenty of reasons to think that a program that's first written in Rust will have fewer defects in the long run than the other languages you mentioned. Of course alternative languages may still have a role to play for quick-and-dirty, purely exploratory coding, but that's about it.