I take rankings like the Tiobe with a pinch of salt. Interesting and one of many data points in choosing a language. You won't find me getting into language just because it at the top of the list. I use what gets the job done for me. Of course many languages can get a particular job done, so there is inevitably some subjective, non-technical, reasons for making a choice.
Personally I feel we should all use rust fmt, with default settings, and stop wasting time fretting over formatting. Then we will all produce an ocean of code that is formatted the same way, which will make life smoother for everyone.
As it happens rust fmt rarely does something I don't like. Looks like that's because I'm an 80 column max. kind of guy. Not rigorously mind. What you call "unreadable tall skinny mess" is how I like it. Long lines crammed full of as much as possible are hard on the eyes and much harder to read. There is a reason books are not short and fat and columns in newspapers and such are narrow. Short lines also make what happened in changes in git diffs and such harder to fathom.
I do agree. Rust has a lot to learn and requires some effort to get into. That is of course a cost to consider. But what language does not?
I considered that cost and concluded that 1) The cost will be recouped in the saving on bug hunting time. Every issue that the compiler annoys one about would an order of magnitude more expensive to deal with after the code is in production. 2) That cost is not likely to be much more than if I were to try and get into Perl or Haskell.
In my life all program have real-time constraints. Not always "hard real-time" as in the embedded world but everyone is concerned about performance now a days. From mobile phones to super computers with data centers along the way. Everyone is concerned about response times for users and energy consumption. Good performance is good for both.