"Disaffected C++ programmer" is altogether too accurate characterization of the author :). I've been removing references to other languages because (a) it's co

"Disaffected C++ programmer" is altogether too accurate characterization of the author :). I've been removing references to other languages because (a) it's confusing (b) can be dismissive ("trash talking") - a language should stand on its own merits. So yes, a first draft. I try to express the paradox - that although Rust is about explicitness, type inference hides the actual concrete types chosen - `f64` and `i32` are examples. This needs to be made .. explicit. Personally I don't think it's possible for people with no prior exposure to programming to learn Rust effectively - unless they are exceptional (in the sense of being 'unusual'). This is because of certain hard constraints when learning a systems language that can't simplify computational models with a garbage collector. So, everyone comes from somewhere - but very different places. That's a challenge I haven't handled well enough (yet). Being gentle is hard. We have to identify the cliffs, and find alternative routes to the top. I really appreciate this criticism, by the way, since most of the feedback has been technical/typos up to now.