&gt;It&#x27;s incorrect to say that Rust hasn&#x27;t prioritized higher-level concurrency tools<p>I think it&#x27;s a fair characterization given 1.0 shipped without them, and there doesn&#x27;t seem to any timeline for standardization (please correct me if I&#x27;m wrong).<p>I don&#x27;t think I have to tell you that concurrency is one of the most important challenges in modern programming. But all Rust gives you today (and for the foreseeable future) is a pthreads wrapper.<p>&gt;I&#x27;m also confused about your perception that the rhetoric gets ahead of the language<p>The parent comment says verbatim &quot;Rust goes out of its way to make it easy and safe to write multithreaded code&quot;. This apparently doesn&#x27;t include preventing deadlocks, a problem that is common, hard-to-avoid, and difficult to recover from. Does that not strike you as a bit of an overreach?