Anecdote: I find my Rust code doesn't resemble the syntax examples in the article. Why am I using Rust? Because it's fast, is good at interacting with hardware

Anecdote: I find my Rust code doesn't resemble the syntax examples in the article. Why am I using Rust? Because it's fast, is good at interacting with hardware, and is suitable for certain domains where there aren't many alternatives (and it happens to have key advantages over the alternatives). Ie: Embedded, and computer graphics. In the former, there's (by default, and often good reason to maintain this) no allocator, so the allocator-based-collections used as the backbone of the article don't apply. In the latter, there's still a lot of manipulating byte arrays etc, as that's the interface between CPU and GPU. Related to both domains: The article is about data structure manipulation, but in general, when I choose Rust, it's to interact with hardware. That's the magic; that's where the language transcends syntax differences. Ie various MCU peripherals, communication lines and buses, passing data to a GPU etc. I think that would be an interesting comparison to highlight. I'm not disparaging the text, but pointing out that its general title hides its narrow scope.