> It's not about the patterns being wrong, it's about the patterns being verifiable and having a compiler that's on your side, not on the side of watching the w

> It's not about the patterns being wrong, it's about the patterns being verifiable and having a compiler that's on your side, not on the side of watching the world burn. Yeah, but not all programs genuinely need to be multithreaded [0] that too with memory sharing, and even in a program very few data is shared. And a lot of patterns can't be verified by compiler to be amenable for static memory management. That's a tradeoff. I am not telling rust's cognitive overhead makes it unsuitable for everything. It definitely has a place. But unlike what a lot of people on HN tend to say, rust is not the perfect language for everything. Languages like OCaml deserved a significant portion of hype that rust gets now. But there is no mozilla and no HackerNews spamming taskforce behind OCaml. On the positive side, all 5 companies using OCaml pay well ;) [1] As a user, I don't want your code to exhaust all my cores, unless it is a batch job. I'd rather urge to choose better algorithms and data structures for the job and many times parallelism is just unnecessary.