The subtext here is that these decisions aren't technical. They're pretty arbitrary: "func" vs. "fn" or camel case vs. snake case. There's no science here: there are lots of very successful languages with camel case and lots of very successful languages with snake case.
I certainly appreciate that you have specific reasons for your preferences, but I take issue with the idea that we didn't spend time on the visual aspect of the language.
> It's reasonable to imagine that Rust could have had less terse, but still readable, syntax, even for things like lifetimes.
Do you have a proposal?
There were long threads with different proposals back when this stuff was being designed, but none of them were particularly palatable. The verbosity with anything that wasn't as lightweight as possible turned out to be too much.
No, those were only the two most obvious, easiest-to-solve examples that came to mind.
With all due respect to you and your Rust colleagues (who have done a lot of impressive work), "we made choices that were not your preference" sounds a little condescending. These are my personal opinions, just as your counterarguments are opinions. We should all able to make technical arguments without resorting to that kind of rhetoric. Of course you made choices. Everyone here is entitled to disagree with them and explain why.
There's a false dichotomy between "hard-to-read syntax" and "no syntax at all" being implied here. It's reasonable to imagine that Rust could have had less terse, but still readable, syntax, even for things like lifetimes.