The `error-chain` crate [1] exists to get rid of precisely the error handling boilerplate the author has encountered. That's not ideal, though, as I believe tha

The `error-chain` crate [1] exists to get rid of precisely the error handling boilerplate the author has encountered. That's not ideal, though, as I believe that a place for such functionality is in the core language, not a separate library, but it gets the job done. As for the `let mut file` bit, that makes sense to me: a file in the standard library is an abstraction over a file descriptor in the operating system, and the descriptor has a file pointer which must be advanced when you read from it. I don't consider it internal state; the read operation will return new data every time, so it's not a pure function. It follows that in order to behave that way, it has to depend on some pretty explicit state. As the other comment said, Rust needs to make some trade-offs, because you simply can't have an expressive and easy-to-use language that runs so close to the metal and is aimed at being C++-level fast. As such, Rust will never be as easy to write as Python, and for scripts like the author mentioned, I'd say that Python is a much better choice than Rust. Rust is, by design, a systems programming language and it does have complexities and gotchas that arise from the need to have a lot of control of what actually happens at the machine code level. If we had a Sufficiently Smart Compiler(tm), of course, you wouldn't have to worry yourself about those low-level details and just write what your program needs to do and nothing more. However, in the absence of such an ideal, we must accept that a high-level abstraction must always leak in some way in order to let us control its operation more closely to get the performance we need. In my opinion, it's much better that necessary abstraction leakage is made a deliberate part of the API/language and carefully designed to minimize programmer error, and Rust, I think, does a good job of doing exactly that. That's not to say that the language cannot be made more ergonomic. For one, I think that rules for lifetime elision are a bit too conservative and that the compiler can be made smart enough to deduce more than it currently does. I'm also excited about the ergonomics initiative, and I hope that the core team will deliver on their promises. In general, as someone who's written more lines in C/C++ in my life than any other language, I'm very excited about the language as a whole, as I think it provides the missing link between those languages that are expressive, high-level, and reasonably safe but slow, and those that are fast, low-level, a bit terse, and allow one to shoot oneself in the foot easily. [1]: https://crates.io/crates/error-chain https://crates.io/crates/error-chain