Increasingly feeling that Rust is like Elm: a language with novel ideas, teaching valuable lessons (a vocabulary for teaching and checking thread safety, docume

Increasingly feeling that Rust is like Elm: a language with novel ideas, teaching valuable lessons (a vocabulary for teaching and checking thread safety, documenting exclusive vs. shared mutability in the type system, arguably a vocabulary for teaching and checking memory safety, though that comes at a steep cost), yet so stubborn the community treats its values (avoiding shared mutability) as moral judgments of code, and the language and deliberately obstructs writing code outside of approved patterns (single ownership tree, exclusive mutability). struct{Cell...}& doesn't need to be harder to use than C++ struct{T...}*, but Rust keeps it difficult because the community views it as bad code design and wants to keep it hard. And *mut T lacks RAII unlike C++'s unique_ptr, and requires unsafe blocks in every dereference. As a result, people turn to unsound patterns like https://github.com/kimundi/owning-ref-rs https://github.com/kimundi/owning-ref-rs, https://github.com/mcoblenz/Bronze/ https://github.com/mcoblenz/Bronze/, and https://github.com/emu-rs/snes-apu/blob/master/src/smp.rs#L53 https://github.com/emu-rs/snes-apu/blob/master/src/smp.rs#L5... (and https://gist.github.com/Darksonn/1567538f56af1a8038ecc3c664a42462 https://gist.github.com/Darksonn/1567538f56af1a8038ecc3c664a... raises questions about what exactly is sound or will be redefined as sound). It's a good language to learn. I hesitate to consider it a replacement for asm/C/C++. Writing rust is hoping that the code you're porting to rust can adapt well to the restrictions, and if not, searching for esoteric and needlessly unsafe/verbose workarounds.