I don't know a whole lot about Rust, but if the pedantism is related to syntax, wouldn't current AI-assisted programming tools be able to help with that?

I've had GPT-4 explain to me weird niches in Django that I don't understand, because I'm coming from a Javascript background. It'll pick up what I'm trying to do, give me the code I'm trying to write, and tell me where I went wrong.

In the process I learn a lot, and waste a lot less time trawling Stack Overflow and parsing other people's code and closed threads.

It's a lot like having a more experienced developer over my shoulder.

Idk if you'd call it syntax or what, but what makes Rust pedantic is that you're always worrying about lifetimes, types, explicit errors (as opposed to exceptions), and other things you mostly don't think about in JS or Py. Same as with C++ or other languages of that nature. Rust holds your hand more and is just better than C++ in general, but you still have to tell the compiler precisely what you're doing.

To answer your question, yes. This is also what I try to hint people at work who scoff at JS and refuse to move past "real programmer" languages, most of their talent is replaceable by GPT.

> It's like C++ only nicer and safer

Rust is enforcing safety while C++ does not. C++ can be safe if you need it to be. Just use safe constructs.

I'd argue that some people might not find Rust nicer.

C++ won't be as safe as Rust unless you use it like Java, copying everywhere or overusing shared_ptr so you don't worry about lifetimes, which nobody really does.