[grovesNL]

Anecdotally I've been able to move faster with Rust on CRUD apps professionally than I've previously in other languages with GC built-in (e.g., C#, TypeScript/Node.js). The borrow checker isn't a problem after you get used to it.

There is still a steep learning curve, although the learning curve has improved significantly over the past couple years. Rust's type system, syntax, and standard library are major strengths compared to those in most GC-based languages, so I'd argue it can be a great fit for domains where GC-based languages have been used historically.

[zamalek]

Rust has healthy friction and you learn how to avoid that friction. It might take you a bit longer to hash something out but chances are it will work first time, and will have better fundamentals in design.

[sreevisakh]

I have a different experience with Rust these days. The errors that Rust throws are either the ones I had a vague hunch about or the ones I missed. It never feels like friction, but rather like helping guides. The error messages are informative and often very helpful in resolving problems.

The key, I believe is understanding the machine and memory model of low level computing. Rust errors immediately make sense in that context and it becomes easier to find a proper solution without having to work around it.

These days I feel much more comfortable with Rust than I'm with even Python. It feels like Rust does a lot of heavy lifting and thorough checking of a lot of semantics that's not possible in other languages. The worries about unforseen bugs are lesser (not zero, though) with Rust.

Edit: Phrasing

[zamalek]

> It never feels like friction, but rather like helping guides.

That is exactly what I mean by "healthy friction." Friction can be used to guide users towards better habits. The fact that you encounter friction less often is evidence of having learned from friction in the past.