I have to side with those saying Go has greater readability, and is easier to use and learn. I know there is a strong push (and arguably corporate backed) to put Rust in everybody faces or present it as being superior, but we still need to be realistic and honest. Not saying that Rust doesn't have its places where it can shine, just that a lot of people are going to find Go to be easier to deal with overall, and it was partially designed to be that way.

>I know there is a strong push (and arguably corporate backed) to put Rust in everybody faces or present it as being superior

No part of my comment was doing this, and this bit is entirely unnecessary and adds nothing to the comment you wrote except fan religious wars about languages.

Sure. But just due to Go type system being pretty basic I've never came across Go code I could not immediately grock, not so with Rust. Even bugging some pretty savvy Rust devs for help it sometimes took them a decent amount of time to pin down whats going on.

That’s probably because you’re not used to it. I think it’s common knowledge that Golang is easy to read.

Couldn't the same be said of rust though? The biggest barrier, in my experience, is almost always familiarity with the syntax.

I work mostly with Rust, and have been for years, and no I wouldn't say that Rust is easy to read. It's easier to read than most legacy languages, but it's nothing like Golang.

Pretty much this, yes.

I think my comfort with Rust moreso comes from it feeling like any other C-ish language in appearance. It reads as expected to me.