Nonsense to you is wonderful to me. I don't think "I am unfamiliar with this syntax" is really a useful observation - Erlang has an extremely unfamiliar syntax,

Nonsense to you is wonderful to me. I don't think "I am unfamiliar with this syntax" is really a useful observation - Erlang has an extremely unfamiliar syntax, but I don't think that makes it less suitable for building a service. I do not think this is just about unfamiliarity. Doing static dispatch with generics + traits does add complexity to type signatures. E.g. consider using dynamic dispatch using trait objects trait Frobber { fn frob(&self, something: &OtherTrait); } versus static dispatch: trait Frobber { fn frob<S>(&self, something: &S) where S: OtherTrait; } Of course, static dispatch has large benefits (opportunities for inlining, possibly leading to other optimalizations). Rust adds correctness and deterministic performance (besides Rc/Arc misuse). But Rust also has the potential for 'macro/generics soup' and over-abstraction. I think it is a fair criticism of a language. Use sharp tools wisely. (Disclaimer: writing Rust daily for work.)