> Heck, the author praises Rust and it's memory safety, but then proceeds to criticise Rust's compiler because, as he puts it, the compiler will stop you from d

> Heck, the author praises Rust and it's memory safety, but then proceeds to criticise Rust's compiler because, as he puts it, the compiler will stop you from doing unsafe stuff again and again. Isn't that the whole point? Rust ensures that all valid rust programs are safe, but this does not mean that programs that are difficult to express in rust are unsafe. Consider how future improvements to rust may make some previously difficult to express patterns easier. I think non-lexical lifetimes would be one such example. You could imagine that someone who learned on a future version of rust might be similarly annoyed at compiler errors when working with an old version of rust that's more limited in what things can be expressed and understood as safe.