> This should be titled "A Ruby programmer looks at Rust". There are now a very large number of programmers who have zero experience (...) To them, Rust is rath

> This should be titled "A Ruby programmer looks at Rust". There are now a very large number of programmers who have zero experience (...) To them, Rust is rather intimidating, and this writer is trying to make it simpler. Funny. I find Rust a more accessible language than Ruby. Rust is certainly not an easy language to learn, but the basic concepts (ownership, borrowing, lifetime) are based on everyday life, and the analogy is precise enough that I don't need to worry about a mismatch between my intuition and the language. For instance, if I let my friend borrow my car, I can't drive it myself until he returns it to me (freezing). And, if a married couple owns a car (Arc), they must take turns to drive it (Mutex, RwLock). On the other hand Ruby's design principles seem to have been: (0) The syntax has to look like English. This is non-negotiable. (1) Each feature must be easy to explain (FSVO “explain”) in isolation. (2) Interactions between arbitrarily many features are allowed to be arbitrarily nasty.