[leshow]

Simpler in what way? There are efforts to make writing Rust simpler, to make lifetime elision better or have the borrowck accept more valid programs.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect Rust to explore removing language features though.

[mamcx]

Example:

- Exist 2 ways to do macros.

- Exist different ways to annotate traits (impl and the long way)

- Alias work, but not everywhere

- The module system is too complicated

- You have pub and pub(crate). The second must have been the default for types on a crate because the way how things are because modules

- The trait system is full of "but" that make it not as simple to use in practice (ej: Is too common traits require extra work because this or that rule in THIS case must be appeased, and also, is where is more obvious things are in disconnect with the rest of the lang)

This as the most obvious.

[saghm]

> - The trait system is full of "but" that make it not as simple to use in practice (ej: Is too common traits require extra work because this or that rule in THIS case must be appeased, and also, is where is more obvious things are in disconnect with the rest of the lang)

Can you give a concrete example of what you mean here? I don't doubt that you have a legitimate criticism, but it's phrased in a way that I genuinely am not able to understand

[estebank]

This is a great example of where the way people use the word "simple" comes along with lots of caveats and mean different things to each one of us. Increasing simplicity in the user experience (by removing seemingly arbitrary restrictions to the type system) mean increasing the complexity of the implementation. We've already seen that with match ergonomics, the borrow checker and async: "adding complexity" results in "a simpler to use" language.

[leshow]

You have just listed a bunch of things as if they are evidence of something, but they are not.