[saagarjha]

> Rust skips (or almost skips) some of those steps. If you can write code that compiles, you can also write code that works. It forces you to be very specific about your intentions, which isn't possible in language with less-thorough type systems and compile-time checks.

Forcing new programmers to be specific about intentions they may not even know they are supposed to have doesn't necessarily work.

> I agree that the curve is steeper at first, but it's arguably impossible to write code that "works well and is readable" in C/C++ (which is why we have Rust in the first place). That makes the latter part of the learning curve an asymptote.

I don't agree with your analysis of "works wells and is readable". It's not too to write C code that works well and is readable. Sure, your code might occasionally break–but the point is that it works most of the time. This isn't necessarily a good mindset to have as a software engineer, but with regards to the specific claim that Rust is easier than C: it's not, because it enforces better practices, which is mental overhead and complexity that C doesn't need to deal with.

[pzone]

> Forcing new programmers to be specific about intentions they may not even know they are supposed to have doesn't necessarily work.

Rust is not a good language for new programmers. Neither is C for that matter. You shouldn't start learning Rust before you have solid intuitions of programming concepts like ownership, scope and mutability.

[rat9988]

And thus the steep learning curve.

[smt88]

It doesn't make sense to assess the learning curve of a language when you're also intermixing learning to code...

It's like saying a plane is "harder to learn to fly than other planes" just because a beginner can't learn to fly it quickly.