[pcwalton]

> The problem with "languages for those who can" is that they get relegated to pet projects, because real teams need code that everyone can understand, not just the "rock stars".

> I actually hope that Rust does not become that kind of a language. I think it has a lot going for it, but I do agree that it's a pretty dense language, and that will cause problems in uptake for real projects.

Many of those real projects can't use anything easier than Rust. Sure, using a GC for everything is easier, allowing memory safety violations is easier, and allowing data races is easier (for some definition of "easy"). But for many projects, like browser engines, kernels, games, etc. neither of these are an option. In other words, avoiding new concepts comes at a price. The concepts in Rust aren't there for no reason; they're there because they're solving real problems.

(Incidentally, I don't think that "simpler" is the right term; I think there's a lot of confusion between "simple" and "easy".)