[germandiago]

Rust is not the most productive language by any means... it is hardened AF if you avoid unsafe, but productive?

I can code much faster in almost any language compared to Rust. It creates mental overhead. For example, to compare it to siblings, Swift and C++ (yes, even C++, but with a bit of knowledge of good practices) lets you produce stuff more easily than Rust.

It is just that Rust, compared to C++, comes extra-hardened. But now go get refactor your Rust code if you started to add lifetimes around... things get coupled quickly. It is particularly good at hardening and particularly bad at prototyping.

They seem to be the opposite in the absence of borrowing without a garbage collector, since you need to mark the lifetime in some way.

[zozbot234]

Rust is not that bad at prototyping, you need to use the right featureset when writing quick prototype code. Don't use lifetimes, use clone() and Rc/Arc freely to get around borrow-checker issues. Use .unwrap() or .expect("etc.") whenever you're not sure how to pass an error back to the caller. Experiment with the "Any" trait for dynamic typing and downcasts, etc. The final code will still be very high-performance for prototype code, and you can use the added boilerplate to guide a refactoring into a "proper" implementation once the design stabilizes.

[germandiago]

Thanks for the advice. That makes sense I guess.

In fact, most of the time, I would favor styles like this even for not prototyping.

At the end, refactoring is also something natural. I would reserve lifetimes for the very obvious cases wirh controlled propagation or for performance-sensitve spots.