About programming language standards and the choice of language
I have mixed view on standards (and trademarks).
1985: First version of C++
1990: First version of Python
1992: First version of C++ STL
1995: First version of Java
1998: First standardized version of C++ (inc STL)
1999: Boost library first version
2008: First version of Python 3 (breaking backward compatibility)
2013: First version of Rust
Python is widely used, and does not have a standard.
So why Rust needs a standard?
And why C++ has one?
Having a C++ standard helped setting expectation for the variety of compilers on the market (and I guess that's the key difference between C++ and others).
Having the boost libraries really help having "widely known libraries", which was lacking compare to Java. Without it, imho, it's likely C++ would have disappeared and be replaced by Java.
IMHO, Oracle being Sun and therefore Java, because of trademarks issues, killed the language (slowly but surely), and helped new alternatives (Kotlin, Scala).
Considering there is one, and only one Rust compiler (maybe I am mistaken), having a standard does not really matter, as long as the core team does not make a mess of it (to a lesser extent of "mess", the move from Python 2 to Python 3 has been an issue in the corporate world).
In the corporate world, stability does matter, clarity on licensing does matter, and that's what you get with ISO specs, "open source" software (or licensed to a similar effects).
The way I see it (and many will disagree)
* C++: standard, lots of people working on it, lots of libraries -> ok (at least ok now, I went through the version 2 to version 3 move in a large corporation :D)
* Python: not standard, but very well defined and mature, lots of people working on it -> ok
* Java: standard well published, language sounds a bit at standstill -> ok licensing can be considered as an issue
* Go: standard well published, super simple, lots of libraries
...
* Rust: motivated community (+), has been moving a lot (-), complex learning curve (-), lots (too many) libraries, documentation (~) could be better.
My point is it is hard to make a call on starting to use Rust for new projects, or "transform an organisation to Rust". In the corporate world, people like safety... not memory safety, but a high probability for projects to be delivered and minimize negative impact of bugs (as opposed to guarantee eradication). It's all about value for money.
Sure, there will be some projects when Rust is seen as a good bet, e.g. in crypto trading, many firm use it, because "it has c++ performance", "guarantee memory safety" (mostly because people are "not old school" and don't understand what memory pointer is <-- waiting for thumb down!), and more importantly, has some library (like networking) that make life easy (because don't even know about the websocket libraries in boost).
Point being that everybody will find good things in any language, and bad things in any other.