I mean the fact that you can do funny stuff with the syntax rules and the type system doesn't disqualify their usefulness. Rust's type system is impressive as i

I mean the fact that you can do funny stuff with the syntax rules and the type system doesn't disqualify their usefulness. Rust's type system is impressive as it enables enforcing powerful constraints over how the code is allowed to execute, eliminating whole classes of bugs, and enabling elegant, zero-cost abstraction over swathes of algorithms and data structures, which in turn lets you have high quality libraries that provide to-the-point solutions for so many of the common tasks that a developer will deal with day to day. A more elegant language that solves the problems that Rust solves, with a production-ready implementation and a good ecosystem hasn't been presented to the world yet. It's to be expected that if you want to benefit from its advantages, you need to pay the cost of dealing with a more complex language. On the other hand paying the cost of being exposed to more concepts pays off by giving you more flexibility to craft simple solutions. Complexity of a project can vastly exceed that of the language the project is written it. In that case the cognitive cost of using more advanced tools to manage that complexity is a boon in the long run. This is analogous to any kind of more sophisticated technology, e.g. you can argue that a scythe is easier to use than a harvester, but with a big enough field, if you have the option, you'll go for the latter.