You make a good point in nuancing the different types of complexity, and trying to sort the complexity derived from doing something hard from the complexity of

You make a good point in nuancing the different types of complexity, and trying to sort the complexity derived from doing something hard from the complexity of doing something wrong. But you skip the important details we do not have an objective way of knowing which is which. You are asserting that Rust/Haskell have more the of former and less of the later without really explaining how you go to that conclusion. Rust and Haskell are complex languages (as compared to say C). And it's not clear for a lot of people that their complexity is any better than C++. But by trying to garanty an ever increasing level of correctness and safety, they booth creating a large set of computation that are conceptually easy but very hard to express in a way that is correct to the type system/borrow checker.