YMMV but I personally have never faced either problem having written tens of thousands of lines of Rust at this point. But to be honest I never worked on a larg

YMMV but I personally have never faced either problem having written tens of thousands of lines of Rust at this point. But to be honest I never worked on a large team of Rust engineers. One of the benefits of Rust is that it gives you an option to switch to imperative style if thats what you choose which isn't the case for Haskell or purely functional languages. Tacit programming was never a problem as the IDE does a pretty phenomenal job of telling you the types anyway. If the IDE can't figure out the type, the compiler won't either. non-const references in a single object can simply be solved by making the whole object mutable, which is essentially what Python et al. do for you anyways. I never had to use any unsafe code or pointers. Not sure if that way of thinking is carried over from C and C++ engineers. The only time I think I use Cell or the like is if I have a global static variable that I need to fill in at runtime. But that is more of a code-smell for most or at best a more advanced programming design that beginners don't need to worry about. The best way to solve the last problem is to understand your data model from the start and make what objects need to be mutable mutable.