But I'm not sure I agree that there would be benefits in introducing a new language as opposed to just using an existing one. I think a Rust that used automatic memory management would effectively be a new language. There would be all the costs that come with introducing a new language: new tooling (even if based on Rust tooling, it'd have to be heavily modified), bootstrapping an ecosystem and community, and so forth. While making new languages is awesome, we have our hands full with the one we have :)
Dyon in particular sounds interesting for realtime apps as it uses a lifetime checker instead of GC.
i also feel fracturing the community would be terrible. i came from basically a dynamic programming background (had done java and c++ in soft. eng. in school and that's it) and I had no problem learning rust.
It doesn't do exactly this, but it's similar I think.
Ideally, all libraries (i.e. should be written by experts) are written in Rust, but applications are allowed to be written in RustScript.
RustScript would be optimized for lower learning curve. example[0]: - No `unsafe` allowed. - Everything is implicitly an `Arc<_>`. - All numerics are BigNum. - etc.
This is inspired by the popularity of using Rust within other languages, like Ruby. The way this would differ from using another language: All the Rust tooling would be the same. Realistically it would just be a different parser for the Rust AST. Therefore no memory layout issues, or FFI involved. Like syntax-sugar to the extreme, the compiler (except the parser) wouldn't even know the difference.
[0] I'm just listing simplifications, regardless of if they are a good idea.