rust is theoretically usable but it has one of those gay AIDS-riddled language-specific package managers that you can't reasonably sidestep
You can completely sidestep cargo and use rustc if you want, use a makefile, whatever. There's nothing stopping you and it is just as easy as with your C compiler of choice.
WHY CAN'T YOU HAVE A FUCKING SYSTEM PACKAGE FOR WHATEVER SHIT EVERYBODY USES BUT ISN'T IN THE STDLIB (like random numbers)
You were going to import a CSPRNG library for cryptographic stuff anyways also /dev/urandom and /dev/random
THAT'S WHAT MY SYSTEM PACKAGE MANAGER IS FOR WHY CAN'T YOU HAVE A FUCKING SYSTEM PACKAGE
Debian tried this and it was a failure, the reason you don't want dynamically linked system packages is because you want to be able to take advantage of the rich rust type system which includes using types from other libraries and passing trait impls across the boundary between libraries and programs. When you dynamic link, you have to conform to the lowest common denominator that the loader library provided by your OS supports, which is in every case the C ABI. You can't propagate rust's rich type system across the C ABI boundary between programs and libraries. This is also the reason for static linking. It is a reasonable tradeoff considering hard drive space is incredibly cheap and mmap is basically OS-level magic as far as the average systems programmer is concerned.
it uses static linking all the goddamn time so you make a helloworld app and then it's 1.2 megabytes
Static linking also solves the problem of relying on a dynamic linker when shipping your binaries, if you static link, all the stuff you need is already there. If you dynamic link, you have to pray that whoever consumes your binary has all the things your binary asks the loader for, and also pray they have an ABI-compatible version installed. This isn't an issue when you statically link your libraries. This again, is totally worth the tradeoff and streamlines deployment. Also, the option for dynamic linking is there for rust if you really really want it.
the syntax at a glance looks nastier than C++
Have you seen C++ template syntax? It's about as bad as rust's explicit lifetime syntax. Complaints about syntax, especially ones that concern aesthetics are purely a skill issue.
But the Rust foundation has a lot of power over the language and has made some concerning moves.
The behaviour of the rust foundation is a valid reason to not use rust. I don't particularly care about the few "controversies", they all amount to nothing regarding the technical aspects of the language and ecosystem.
the community does not help and it is a real problem
The great thing about """online communities""" is that you can completely ignore and disregard them. They don't exist outside of their horrific discord server(s), probably some fediverse instances somewhere and reddit. They don't exist in the real world outside of some annual conferences that you can just not attend.