I'm not sure I would call them "easier for beginners", but probably "better for beginners trying to learn underpinning concepts" But overall I agree: I probabl

I'm not sure I would call them "easier for beginners", but probably "better for beginners trying to learn underpinning concepts" But overall I agree: I probably would not teach Rust as a first programming language, maybe not even a first low-level language. Its abstractions may be zero-cost in terms of performance, and airtight in terms of correctness, but many of them are not intuitive unless you understand what's really happening underneath. Some of them feel intuitive enough at first... until they aren't, and then people hit a wall. I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem (or whether there is one). To its credit the team has done an incredible job documenting and writing guides, but I still think there's a gap here. It may simply be that at a certain point Rust is not a learning language, it's a productivity language for experienced programmers.