> But it turns out that it's possible that Rust may not have been radical enough! Consider: what if you want a type that not only can't be copied, but can't be

> But it turns out that it's possible that Rust may not have been radical enough! Consider: what if you want a type that not only can't be copied, but can't be moved as well? When talking about Pin, I think it is important to go back to a more fundamental level. There are types that are not movable without extra processing, like a `struct` that has fields that reference other fields. When moving, those references become invalid. Rust chose by allowing types to become unmovable so the `struct` can't go into an invalid state. While C++ doesn't have the same safety guarantees, they did need to solve this problem. C++ chose to solve this with move constructors. I know move constructors will have their own challenges in Rust but I hope we do get them one day.