As a Rust proponent, the reasons listed in this article match my sentiment surprisingly well, although the author seems to think Rust isn't ideal for my use cas

As a Rust proponent, the reasons listed in this article match my sentiment surprisingly well, although the author seems to think Rust isn't ideal for my use cases. I'm also from Python, which I've used for more than 10 years, and chose Rust as my next weapon. - Haskell: While pervasive laziness does have its merits, I believe it is not the best choice in general, especially for performance-wise. Having to use streaming libraries to do even a simple I/O is just ridiculous. Its syntax was also a big obstacle to me, but thankfully I overcame it. But I'm not sure I can also persuade my colleagues to do the same thing. - Scala: If I have a JVM requirement, Scala would be a really good fit. (Un)fortunately I don't have such a limit, so what Scala provides are less appealing to me. It also seemed way too gigantic to me at a glance, probably to be interoperable with Java. But I've not tried it deeply. - F#: I've only heard good things about that, and it was quite a great experience learning through its great IDE. The problem is that even though MS's recent moves I'm still not completely sure if I could retrofit myself to the .NET ecosystem. But the future is bright. - OCaml: OCaml always felt a bit "obsolete" to me. AFAIK it even didn't have multi-core support until very recently (no parallelism, concurrency only), and they seem to have no resources for a decent Windows support. It has also a funny syntax. I definitely agree Rust's syntax is ugly at best, but OCaml's is... I just can't describe it. Hopefully I can get used to it someday, like I did to Haskell. And I met Rust and instantly fell in love, even though it requires me to do manual memory management. While manual memory management makes a certain data structure harder to implement, what I realized is that for my daily job, especially for "boring" works (e.g. CRUD apps), it is OK to use manual memory management. If there's a need, I can always borrow libraries from others to accomplish my job. And it is fast by default, less need to optimize the code by myself, as seen in Haskell. That said, what I have as a "best" language in my mind is, probably a strict version of Haskell. Yeah, that would be Idris, like the author suggests. I really hope that Idris will take off in the near future.