[thomasmg]

> the article was not intended to users but to other language designers.

That might be true, but it shows the direction that Rust is talking: put in the kitchen sink, just like C++ and Scala did. And _that_ is very much important for users.

[gignico]

I'm not sure it shows that. Even basic features of Rust we take from granted come from concepts common users do not need to understand. Borrowing of lifetime draws from affine types, but nobody cares when writing Rust code. If in 2012 you read a similar article explaining borrow checking in academic terms you would have thought Rust would be unusably hard, which is not.

Also I do not think that adding features is always bad to the point of comparing with Scala. Most of the things the article mentions will be almost invisible to users. For example, the `!Forget` thing it mentions will just end up with users getting new errors for things that before would have caused memory leaks. What a disgrace!

Then, pattern types allow you to remove panics from code, which is super helpful in many critical contexts where Rust is used in production, even in the Linux kernel once they will bump the language version so far.

[zozbot234]

> If in 2012 you read a similar article explaining borrow checking in academic terms you would have thought Rust would be unusably hard, which is not.

Ironically, Rust was unusably hard prior to the late-2018 edition. So now your academic article has to explain both the baseline borrow checker and non-lexical lifetimes, a vast increase in complexity.

[gignico]

Your statement contradicts itself. It was unusable hard before non-lexical lifetimes, but they vastly increased the complexity? Then maybe what’s complex for compiler writers to implement can make the user’s life easier by lowering the complexity of their code?