> I spent an afternoon messing about with Rust and found it infuriating. The compiler kept (quite rightly) telling me how crap my code was and wouldn't compile

> I spent an afternoon messing about with Rust and found it infuriating. The compiler kept (quite rightly) telling me how crap my code was and wouldn't compile it for me. I found it frustrating but thoroughly educational. The same is true for Ada and Haskell. You point to a typical problem of people who are interested in Rust. They like the syntax and features but the compiler gets in their way to be productive in a short amount of time. That is frustrating. The Rust community should not point so much emphasis on its beloved borrow checker like the Haskellers praise their monads. Both things are attractive only if their is real practical value in everyday coding. If devs need three to ten times more time than in C++ to develop something then they won't switch, even if C++ has no borrow checker. They could compensate this lack with verification tools, FramaC and the like. I agree with Andreas Bergmeier's comment in the author's blog. Experienced developers may barely have problems with lifetime issues, in particular if they use a language with garbage collection which really makes sense for most business applications. Rust would probably have much more convincing power if the community would go the way which Microsoft went to promote their C++ and C# compilers. They provided a very convenient Visual Studio IDE with excellent documentation.