Which is fair. The author also highlights an interesting problem: Some of us will opt to not use Rust, even when we should, simply because the language doesn't appeal to us.

I love the idea of Rust, but find the syntax to be just awful, and the entire thing just overly complex. I'm not saying that Rust isn't the way it is for good reasons, but the code is often hard to read. Some of the syntax choices are in my mind questionable and serves only to have Rust programmer appear smarter than the rest of us.

Rust shouldn't try to accommodate people like me, because it will make everything worse for everyone. Instead I should look elsewhere, may not to C, I'm not that clever, but to languages like Go, Nim, Crystal or Hare. It's important that we have choices, because even the best designed language, and I do consider Rust a well designed language, will fail to appeal to everyone.

The language is just an interface between humans and the machine to make it easier for us humans - machines aren't all the same so why should humans be?

"Some of us will opt to not use Rust, even when we should"

Nobody SHOULD use Rust.

Some may use it, but nobody should.

And because of this "should" many will not use it, especially when you consider that the language is conceptually overweight and there was already one "very popular" conceptually overweight Scala language, which now only the old people remember (laughs).

Now you're just being overly pedantic about language. English isn't my native language nor am I a professional writer.

Getting hung up about the choice a single word in a comment is a little weird and makes you appear rather annoying.

You need not be so offended, it's not even about your text.

You can use search for the next criteria: why you should use rust

This informational noise is very disturbing and forms a somewhat distorted perception of reality, because it profanes the choice of a very complex instrument (which is just a small part of the huge instrumental set). And thanks to this noise, the obvious boundaries between the apparently different "must" and "can" are lost.

I only talk about this and nothing else.

Did you read Matklad's recent post on Rust's syntax?

Because very little of what people complain about is actually syntax and is actually semantics.

But closure syntax is awful

Yes, that was very good read and help moderate my annoyance with Rust. I could quite figure out if the "unfolding" or rewrite of the examples had any negative impact on performance. If it doesn't I fail to see the benefit of the rather convoluted code used in the examples.

I started learning Nim a few years ago (never use it professionally, though).

Overall, it feels like a nice combination of Pascal and Python. At least, reading Nim code is usually easier than Rust.

On the other side, I'm still interesting in learning Rust. There are some open source OS kernel projects written in it.

I wrote a few programs in Nim to get a feel for the language, coming from a background in mostly Python I found it pretty easy to pick on the basic language structure.

Same as with any other c/c++ stalwart.

Seriously. The post should've just been the "Rust Isn’t Fun for Me" section. That's the reason, everything else is just rationalizing.

To be clear, I don't mean to disparage the author's decision. Programming can be an artistic endeavour, where personal enjoyment trumps most concerns. If programming C is what keeps you motivated, go ahead and use it! Just be aware that this may make your software risky to use and rejected in many real-world situations.