Okay but if you develop your Rust application correctly, then it’s obviously also correct. It doesn’t matter what language you use then.
rust would be a more difficult language than java and less documented
That is just like, your opinion, man. I disagree. I’d rather not have null references and exception-handling if I was going for stability. Rust also has very nice documentation.
your programming language needs maturity, stability and a community to support it. Most of it rust doesnt have.
Okay, Rust is not as old as Java. This is true. But at this point, you cannot say that Rust is immature, unstable or doesn’t have a community.
The community online is huge, bigger than most other communities. If you want a number, see for instance the number of active users on /r/rust versus /r/java. I checked it now and it was 1096 versus 195. Nobody is hyped about Java any more, it’s an old language that many people don’t like. Check also for instance how many people like Java or Rust in the StackOverflow developer survey. ~87% of Rust users love using Rust while only ~46% of Java users love using Java - that means that there are more Java devs that would rather not use Java than Java devs who want to use Java!
Rust has very strong backwards-compatibility guarantees (just like Java). It’s very stable and things mostly “just work” if it compiles (unlike Java).
I would call Rust much more reliable than Java, and I think most people who have tried both would agree. Exception-based error handling just makes it notoriously difficult to cover all error cases.
Anyways m8, unless this somehow sways you I think we need to just agree to disagree. I would encourage you to actually try the language and see for yourself and see what I mean though.