Comparing python to rust, rust has far fewer breaking updates than python, and thats a fact. Feature updates can and do break older code in python, whereas in rust this is simply not allowed with few exceptions.

The language is allowed to change in compatible ways with editions. Every few years a new edition is released which allows otherwise breaking changes to be implemented, but the old and new code can still work together. Developers can rev the edition version when they want. I also think cargo might be able to help upgrade to a new edition as well.

Rust isn’t perfect, but python fails to learn the lessons that even perl implemented decades ago.

Technically, the kernel doesn’t compile with pure standard C, they require strict aliasing to be disabled, so that alone doesn’t seem to be strictly required.

Not saying that standards aren’t useful, but they’re not some dividing line separating the true languages from the joke languages, they’re just a useful document that earns a language a few “good language” points, but those points can be earned other ways too.

For example, rust has pretty good versioning, so even if the devs did totally wreck the language in the next version, it’d maintain compatibility with older code just fine, which sort of invalidates your point, unless you’re worried that the devs turn malicious, but the language is open source, so I imagine that would get it forked pretty quickly.