> And even then [Swift] left me wondering why they could not tolerate a slightly more ugly syntax, in favor of readability. Well said. I've also been coding f

> And even then [Swift] left me wondering why they could not tolerate a slightly more ugly syntax, in favor of readability. Well said. I've also been coding for a couple of decades (mostly in C++) and I also found advanced, real-world Swift unbearably... "irritating", for the lack of a better term. Surprisingly, I do not have that problem with Rust, even though Rust can be quite complex in order to be able to express ideas that Swift cannot handle at all (lifetime, ownership, immutability of reference types, mutable reference exclusivity, dynamic trait types, etc.) Somehow my brain is happy to consume complex Rust, while it's often "irritated" about consuming complex Swift. I think the reason why Rust is so overwhelmingly better than Swift (for me, at least) is the fact that a lot of (ingenious) effort must have been put by the Rust Gods into Rust language >>consistency<< and >>predictability<<. My proverbial "sh*t, I like Rust..." moment came after I noticed a few things: 1.) Rust did not allow me to force-implement the Copy trait for a type that was not actually simply bitwise-clonable, 2.) Rust was expecting the "await" keyword after an expression, like a function call, yet uniquely without parenthesis, and 3.) Rust closures turned out to be based on the very easily noticeable double-pipe syntax. My plea to the Rust Gods That Be: do not ever allow Rust to lose that unique "explicitness" and "predictability". It is one of the language's greatest assets.