> They attract programmers that love the beauty of the code - good programmers. I see Rust as the inverse of this. The resulting code itself is not as concise

> They attract programmers that love the beauty of the code - good programmers. I see Rust as the inverse of this. The resulting code itself is not as concise and not as beautiful as other language can be. This problem is inherent to the problem Rust is trying to solve. But it communicates clearly what the developer intends to do. > - but they don't actually help accomplish making maintainable code that solves problems It may not solves your immediate problem, but Rust have solved a lot e.g. figma, discord, aws firecracker. It is just relatively a young language, because it grows slow, or supposed to be slow because of its wide range of capability, for that matter. > But if I want to get something done, it's boring languages with boring constructs. "Boring" is vague to describe a language. Choosing a language is always about matching the PL user's requirement and the PL APIs itself. Tbh, TypeId and generics is the only Rusty thing in this article. Most of the other stuff is the author's invention to demo them. Usually for polymorphism. And it's pretty simple actually, you can just write it in TypeScript in the same way.