Cherry picking an instance of complexity is not a particularly fair way to judge a language. It would be like explaining how to encode the lambda calculus in C+

Cherry picking an instance of complexity is not a particularly fair way to judge a language. It would be like explaining how to encode the lambda calculus in C++ templates and then claiming C++ is too complex. As far as I have read, Pin has never been a satisfactory thing but a necessary one. Even recently Rust has been trying to decide how to really handle unsafe mutable pointers in a way that COULD be safe. I'm surprised you didn't bother to use that example, as it is much more convincing in my opinion. But that gets to the point, not all of Rust is simple (Indeed, most novices will exclaim it is way too complex for merely having a borrow checker) or elegant, but that does not prevent the average use case from being so (the exact situations that you claim to want to use Go in, why would you be using two nested Pins in any normal situation?). Moreover, Rust is actively evolving, and we can hope that these rough edges do get better with time.