One obvious argument is that Rust frontloads its difficulty. It's a terrible tool for most 30 line tasks, simply because the majority of your work will go into arguing with the compiler. But that's true of a great many tools - if there's an adequate payoff in safety and comprehensibility at scale, they can still be worthwhile.

That doesn't solve the learning-and-usage problem, though. Most of us are aware that the explosion of dangerous-at-scale tools like Javascript is largely because no one adopts a language that's unfriendly until you reach enterprise sizes. Even if Rust is "worth it", it's unlikely to catch on while the learning experience feels like pulling teeth.

This arguing with the compiler is really only while you are learning Rust and it's nuances. For me the first two weeks were this way, then I started thinking more in Rust terms. Now I rarely deal with the borrow checker at all, but I do end up in some complex type situations.

You're spot on with the frontloads difficulty. Honestly though, I can't think of any language that I've learned that in under a few weeks I knew how to properly do things in the language.

Python was this way for me. My code looked like C when I started with it, and then I learned after a few weeks about 'with' and 'yield' and started writing real code.

Rust is worth the initial investment, but the first two weeks will require some perseverance.

I definitely share your concern; for me, Rust was like putting on a glove perfectly shaped for my hand. It works and prevents every basic pattern that it took 10 years to learn and start applying to all my code thereafter. If I had Rust all those years ago, it would have saved me a ton of time... but I probably would have turned my nose up at it, b/c I wouldn't have had the experience to understand what it was saving me from.

So yes, I want the learning curve to be lower, but not at the expense of losing all of the safety it brings to developing fast and reliable software.

That's an example of just two blocks, but if it's deeper structures then ignoring this until the end could cause you to go back and restructure significant sections of code to make it abide by the mutability rules.

The process I use to stay productive, is to write small blocks of code, write a unit test for it, compile, and then move on. That way I don't build up a ton of compiler debt...

It just means you've learned to head off problems before they occur, that does not mean the problems you're heading off should be there.

It does. Ada did too with people saying same stuff. Once they got used to it, they swore by Ada since their stuff usually worked after they got it past compiler. I also add that the alternative to Rust for GC-free safety of heap code is essentially separation (VCC) or matching logic (KCC). That's probably much harder for average programmer to work with than structuring stuff to get through borrow checker easily. Cyclone and then Rust were huge steps up on dynamic, memory safety given they're accessible to people who don't know formal verification.

That's the comparison people keep leaving off griping about borrow checker. I think Rust looks a lot better when one adds it. Still a headache but good in relative way.

No, unsafe would be overkill and if you needed unsafe, it would put Rust at a massive disadvantage vis-à-vis garbage-collected languages.

Simply put, Rust doesn't handle multiple ownership well. It results in syntactic bloat and/or runtime overhead. But multiple ownership occurs naturally in a number of real-world programs.

> Second, this article only considers the costs of a stricter borrow checker, not the benefits.

This is why I very specifically mentioned that it's a tradeoff.

Destroying a circular list takes some thought to make sure you don't double free, same as Rust. Rust just makes those sections of code very explicit and calls your attention to it, while in C you may end up with a segfault, or worse a program that only shows odd bugs during runtime. At least Rust is telling you that you need to put some extra thought in this section.

If you don't need manual memory management, it's obviously going to be a burden. There are still use cases for manual memory management though, and that's where Rust comes in.

Use the right tool for the job.

That's exactly the point that I made in my original comment?

I don't see an issue with 'unsafe' if it's an implementation detail and well-tested. Obviously it would be better to avoid it if possible. 'unsafe' is overkill sometimes and worth it other times.

unsafe should be IMO, reserved for only those cases where strictly needed, e.g. FFI is the clearest example.

The same can be said of C and C++, at which point, why does it matter if you use Rust?

The only thing you cannot exactly prevent is "cast_dammit_cast".

All of these things have a larger cost than Rust: you're forced to use pervasive reference counting and very defensive data structures. Rust allows you to get away with pointers deep into other things, as well as aggressive data structures, all in safe code.

Rust also has reliable use-after-move defense for arbitrary resources (not just vague dynamic protections for only the memory resource), and defends against data races. That is, Rust has true safety in a way that can give higher performance than approximate safety in C++.

Static analysers and code reviews are not always possible, depending on the target OS and compiler being used, or how the whole project across teams is organized.

It certainly takes a lot more typing to get things done.

It's much like visiting other, radically different countries than the ones you've been brought up in. Even if you don't wind up moving there permanently, you'll be richer for the experience.