It seems like they're trying to solve a problem (manual destructor call to free memory) that is important in other languages but not rust on account of borrowin

It seems like they're trying to solve a problem (manual destructor call to free memory) that is important in other languages but not rust on account of borrowing. Even in the author's examples I feel like it's a problem directly solved by lifetimes, since all the reasoning about freeing that memory is already there. Interestingly they picked the best possible case to showcase rust's strengths, where the free happens on drop. If it were a case where you needed strict control over where that memory came from and _when_ it gets freed, C would seem like a nice fit, but rust is great when you only care that the memory is gone once your variable's out of scope.