[TypesWillSaveUs]

You're conflating hard/easy and complex/simple.

Rust is hard/simple. The rules aren't complex. The constructs aren't complex. But it's hard to write because the rules are very restrictive.

Rust is also much easier to read than write (for a reader who understands the rules).

It's optimising for exactly the things you want in systems programming:

Easier to read than the write. Simple rules that are easy to understand but hard to follow, and that produce simple programs.

Compare that to C which is easy/complex. It's much easier to write than to read. It's easy to learn and write but produces code that's very complex. The rules are all by convention instead of part of the type system.

[andrewstuart]

>> for a reader who understands the rules

So you’re saying it’s not a problem to understand if you understand it.

[saghm]

That's pretty out of context. Before that, they say this:

> The rules aren't complex. The constructs aren't complex.

So yes, once you understand it, you understand it, but they also specifically said it's not hard to get to the point of understanding it. If we're going to assume that any out-of-context quote is equivalent to the entirety of the content, I'll just cite you on this one:

> it’s not a problem

[bbatchelder]

Think of chess.

Its pretty easy to learn the rules. Once you've done that you can watch a game and know roughly what is happening. But its still a hard game to master.