Being "explicit with code for memory safety [even for] simple operations" is the whole point of Rust. Otherwise, sooner or later, as a codebase grows, you make

Being "explicit with code for memory safety [even for] simple operations" is the whole point of Rust. Otherwise, sooner or later, as a codebase grows, you make mistakes that your compiler cannot catch (e.g., you give an immutable reference to a component and later on unexpectedly mutate that same referenced memory from under that component). > [Rust] [will be] driven into a shit state. Specifically because of [unsafe Rust] Using unsafe Rust is actually frowned upon in the Rust community, unless you specifically need it in order to interface with another programming language (e.g., Foreign Function Interface), work around some OS issue (e.g., memory pinning for Linux driver development) and so on. Otherwise, you are supposed to always write safe Rust code. Way more than unsafe Rust, what worries me is the potential future, long-term language feature bloat. I wholeheartedly do hope that Rust core team will keep the language as simple and consistent as humanly possible. > If you want to improve development, focus on smarter compilers/interpreters, not languages. Well, in order to get a smarter compiler, you need new language features to be able to feed additional information about programmer's intent into that compiler - hence Rust's new language features, for example (memory reference) lifetime annotations that all newcomers have a problem with :).