I think the reason Rust's syntax is so controversial and divisive is that its syntax works well for some areas and poorly for others. TFA highlights it well:

I think the reason Rust's syntax is so controversial and divisive is that its syntax works well for some areas and poorly for others. TFA highlights it well: > It is needed because Rust loves exposing physical layout of bytes in memory as an interface, specifically for cases where that brings performance. Rust (and its syntax) is designed for precision and performance and explicitness. That's great for the parts of your code that are extremely performance sensitive. However, for most of our code, we need flexibility and high-level readability a bit more... a bit of a mismatch with some of Rust's decisions. I like C#'s approach here. By default it decouples away all of these unnecessary low-level decisions, and lets you focus on what the code is actually trying to do. Then, if you want to do performance-sensitive work, you can use things like `struct`. I wish it went a bit further, but it's pretty nice.