[Aurornis]

> But reading some of the made-up syntax in the "Removing Coherence" section makes my head hurt.

Articles discussions new features always have difficult syntax. There have been proposals like this going on from the start.

Fortunately the language team is cognizant of the syntax and usability issues with proposals. There have been a lot of proposals that started off as very unwieldy syntax but were iterated for years until becoming more ergonomic.

[kelnos]

I think it's more than the syntax, it's just the number of concepts you need to keep in your head to read a type signature, or a trait declaration, or whatever. There's only so much you can pack into a limited language before it becomes too much to keep in your head at once.

[bryanlarsen]

Most of the time over the past couple years when somebody complained about Rust getting a complex new feature, it was complex backend work that exhibited to users as the removal of restriction, making the language simpler. Example: async closures. A language that supports both async and closures but doesn't support them together is more complicated than one that supports async closures.

This feels like it should end up similar. The driving desire here is the removal of a restriction, so hopefully it ends up as an end user simplification rather than complication.

[ifwinterco]

And then someone declares "this language is a mess! I'll take the good parts and create a new one without all this cruft!" and the cycle continues