> You can't even explain how doing something as simple as a binary tree with parent pointer is possible in rust, so my assumption is that it isn't possible A b

> You can't even explain how doing something as simple as a binary tree with parent pointer is possible in rust, so my assumption is that it isn't possible A beginner learns this in the first week: struct Node<'a, 'b> { left: Option<&'a Node>, right: Option<&'b Node> } Many people don't know how to read or write, but you don't hear them every day claiming that "therefore it must be impossible", yet here we are. > but I don't see why I'd learn a language where I'd be forced to make those work arounds rather than use the version that fits my problem best. > but it seems everyone is hell bent on just saying "You shouldn't do it!". The claim was and still is "there are infinitely more effective - as in faster - ways to learn Rust than by starting with how to write doubly-linked lists". This whole thread is you failing at 3rd grader logic hard and concluding: - therefore it is impossible to write doubly-linked lists in Rust - therefore doubly-linked list in Rust are efficient - therefore it is impossible to learn Rust - ...and many other things... I've taught Rust to a 9th year old, but I don't think I could have taught Rust to a 2 year old, so arguably, I think you are right, in that probably _FOR YOU_ it is impossible to learn Rust, you wouldn't be able to grok how to write doubly-linked lists in Rust properly, you wouldn't be able to master Rust to write efficient code in it, etc. That's ok, don't be frustrated by it, everybody is different. Just try to stop projecting your limitations to other people. Particularly in this forum, or when talking with Linux kernel developers, were most people are smart experienced programmers that would learn Rust well in a day and master it in a week.