Looks like your complaints were > I fixed a lot of code after updating to the latest Rust compiler each day. When referencing your experience, it might be goo

Looks like your complaints were > I fixed a lot of code after updating to the latest Rust compiler each day. When referencing your experience, it might be good to point out that this is before Rust hit 1.0 (commits mention Jan 2015 and 1.0 was released May 2015). This problem goes away and a lot has improved about the language and ecosystem since then. > But nothing in life is free. GTK is sufficiently complicated that a Rust "safety wrapper" is in order. The one available was not complete. I think GUIs might still be a weak point for Rust but it sounds like this has gotten better. I hear a lot of positive reactions around relm http://relm.ml/relm-intro http://relm.ml/relm-intro > And then I tried to abstract the font rendering code into a widget concept, and everything broke down. The Rust compiler has many false negatives - situations where it is a compile error due to safety, but actually it's pretty obvious that there are no safety problems. Any examples of false negatives? The main source of them is borrows that don't need to live to the end of the scope ("non-lexical (borrow) lifetimes"). While in most cases this is easy to work around (add a scope), things are progressing for the Rust compiler to understand these.