On the other hand, once you do convince the compiler, you have an excellent chance that the code actually is correct, and you'll spend far less time chasing down crazy runtime bugs.

That's what I love about Haskell as well. Know of any other languages like this?

In general, I'm a big fan of static typing. I don't know any other language that manages to provide as much static memory safety as Rust, though; that's the main innovation in Rust.

And yet strictness typing seems to be on nobody's plan for future Haskell extensions.

TBH, Rust looks a bit stillborn - too weird to live, too rare to die.

In fact, I don't see how Go is C like at all. It seems much more akin to other managed languages, like Java. The only reason it seems to come up in these discussions is that Google said it was for "systems" programming, using a new value of "systems".

Maybe you're referring to mindsets and syntax or something?

I also happen to prefer Go's syntax to Rust's, but I can live with GC'd performance. If I were writing something as performance critical as a browser rendering engine, I could get past the weird syntax. I think both Go and Rust have bright futures.

OTOH, Rust is maturing quite well, and I think it has broader applicability and a very different area that is its strongest point that is the case for Go, so I think that its quite likely to do well initially in places where Go isn't much of a competitor, and in the long run may well be more successful than Go. (Particularly, its focus seems to be aimed at lower-level system programming than Go's, but a the same time it has constructs that, once good low-level libraries are in place, seem to make it potentially quite good for higher-level programming as well.)

I disagree with "too weird to live" but at least it makes sense. What does "too rare to die" mean?