[chiefsucker]

> It is obvious the author has little to no experience in developing production software in Rust.

Statements like these don’t necessarily speak for the user-friendliness of Rust or Rust itself. Safety? OK, cool. But for what cost?

[jacobr1]

I think the cost is roughly: "we force you to reason about, and account for safety in the code." Then given that this is now explicitly forced upon the developer, are Rust's constructs overly complex, or reasonably once someone gets over the learning curve? The alternative is using a managed runtime, which probably should be the default for most programmers. But for those that are doing systems programming, we absolutely need something "like Rust." The memory access patterns need to be explicit.

[unlinked_dll]

Personally I think the type system (via traits and genetics) makes it really easy to build abstractions with low costs and friendly APIs, which makes composing good software that runs faster much easier.

There seems to be a class of developer that's been brainwashed into thinking generic programming is bad. It's pretty damn great when your type system is well designed.