[socialdemocrat]

So Rust force you to do waterfall design? Sorry just had to tease about that as a dynamic language fan. I am much more in the LISP school of thought, believing in growing software through iteration and exploration, for much the same reason I think lean project development has been more successful.

The problem is that so much of the time when you are building something you don't really have a clear idea of what you are doing, but you build and understanding as you experiment and iterate.

I do writing professionally now and have much the same experience. It is hard to plan exactly what you will write in detail. So much of the greatest ideas materialize as you write. Both writing and coding is IMHO a thinking process.

On the other hand I fully accept that us developers are all different in how our brains work. But I have seen when working with people much smarter than me how much they get stuff wrong and waste time by trying to excessively plan before fully understanding the problem. Stuff I notice I solve easily by taking an experimental and iterative approach.

One small concession: I think JavaScript is awful and Ruby projects tend to end up as a mess. I am mostly a Julia, Lua and Go fan. So I kind of learn towards languages which are a bit in between dynamic and static.

[pkd]

Rust does not prevent you from changing the model through iteration - it simply makes you explicitly think about it each time you are making changes. That is not against lean/agile way of working.

I have worked on one of the largest Ruby monoliths around and I love Ruby, but I also appreciate that Rust can cut through some class of problems that you can't with Ruby (similarly it is much easier to bend Ruby to your will than Rust).