Not sure if your comment was intended dismissively/jokingly, but I think also somewhat insightful. I find myself much less often really thinking about how to do something these days; if it seems remotely standard or potentially troublesome I google it. As a result, I spend less time thinking "algorithmically" about low-level stuff and probably lose something. But I also spend more time thinking (perhaps algorithmically) about the business domain, and am ultimately more productive.

Googling for Rust solutions is dangerous since frequently the advice you find only applied to some old beta version and no longer works. Then you find a second answer but it only applies to an even older beta version. None of the examples anywhere work of course.

This is my biggest frustration with the language: the manual is good for what it is, but it only covers the basics. You can see this in the article, where the author tries to implement a simple DNS cache and fails miserably. He doesn't even get to the part where you have a separate thread managing the cache and expiring old entries in the background to avoid unbounded growth and stale data. This is the sort of thing I could whip up in literally half an hour in C, but I just know the borrow checker is going to be a pain in the ass if I try to do something similar in Rust.

And your comment sounds exactly like the author to me: "I can't move transparently from languages I know well to ones I don't". Would you be able to whip up same in Haskell or Erlang? How many people claiming this would include a few bugs that Rust prevents?

Learning curve is a feature for sure, and the Rust community seems to be aware of this. But expectations of minimal effort are odd.