How on earth do you write your own `Future` type without understanding pinning ? Or your own combinator? Or executor ? Or how do you understand the error messages when trying to Box or Rc a future? Or write an `async` abstraction over some C FFI component that you need to use? Or...
If the goal was for users to just use high-level web frameworks, and when there is something that the framework cannot do (which is currently a lot), the expectation is that users should just shrug their shoulders and tell their bosses "Sorry boss, Rust can't do that", then sure, there is no need to understand pinning. But such users do not need to use Rust either, an pretty much any other programming language like Go or Python would have been a much better fit for them.
There is a huge gradient of use cases between "high level web frameworks" and "writing everything from scratch" and we've thought about the impact on users at every step of that gradient. But I'm not about to explain it to you, because you are being disingenuous and aggressive.
And even for the user that only uses high level web frameworks, the moment that user needs to debug its program (which might have a bug in its executor), it needs to understand pinning.
I don't see any use case in which understanding pinning is not necessary.
There's miles between understanding pinning well enough to call `Box::pin` (a safe API) and understanding pinning well enough to call `Pin::get_mut_unchecked` (an unsafe API). When we talk about understanding pinning, we mean the latter.
If the goal was for users to just use high-level web frameworks, and when there is something that the framework cannot do (which is currently a lot), the expectation is that users should just shrug their shoulders and tell their bosses "Sorry boss, Rust can't do that", then sure, there is no need to understand pinning. But such users do not need to use Rust either, an pretty much any other programming language like Go or Python would have been a much better fit for them.