Yeah I guess I'd phrase it as 3 kinds of "complexity"

Rust is complex because the compiler has many ways to say "No I won't compile that, it might be wrong".

C++ is complex because it requires the programmer to understand every feature used in the codebase. (e.g. Will the compiler warn me if I use inheritance and dynamic dispatch wrong? I'm not sure. I find code with inheritance hard to read.)

Go _code_ is complex because the language is too simple. (if err != nil is waterbed complexity)

> Rust is complex because the compiler has many ways to say "No I won't compile that, it might be wrong".

Doesn't Rust have an escape hatch in the form of the "unsafe" keyword for cases where you're reasonably sure the code is safe and correct?

I haven't used Rust and most of my knowledge of it comes from HN, so I could easily be wrong.

It does, which is where the social aspect comes in: You're expected to make every reasonable effort not to use it, even if that comes at slight costs in performance, because practically speaking people are terrible at making those judgements.

Sometimes works well. Sometimes, unfortunately, it leads to bullying.

I always pictured that in a professional setting, engineering management would have an edict that `unsafe` is simply not allowed, or possibly, they allow it with extensive code review by multiple engineers.

And that there would also be a lot of people trying to implement a double-linked list and finding themselves having to sprinkle "unsafe" all over the place to satisfy the borrow checker.

Both of those happen. Though in practice, unless you’re specifically implementing basic infrastructure, I’ve never yet had any need to use unsafe.

> C++ adds fifty years of cruft to that.

If "that" refers to the support of a modern, safe style of program, then no, C++ has only the cruft, not that.