Maybe it is. But each of these perform a role that can’t be easily removed. - unsafe. You could make a language that didn’t allow third parties to write unsafe

Maybe it is. But each of these perform a role that can’t be easily removed. - unsafe. You could make a language that didn’t allow third parties to write unsafe code. Except there are a few cases where it’s necessary. Me personally, I’ve never written any unsafe but I have relied on well written, vetted implementations written by others (like the standard library Vec). - compile time language. A language either needs run time reflection or it needs compile time meta programming. Rust chooses the bare minimum for a runtime so there are no reflection APIs. That said, there probably is space for more ergonomic meta programming APIs. It still wouldn’t look like regular Rust, but it could be easier to read. I don’t know what they mean by expression language. And I thought the type and trait language is the same? Calling these “languages” seems excessive to me, but sure. I think it’s almost certainly possible to improve on Rust, either in place or by creating a new language that makes different trade-offs. Maybe that one would provide run time reflection, for instance.