>Lastly, it is far too easy to create complex types with questionable value all over your code. Any time a developer wants to unravel a pre-existing complex typ

>Lastly, it is far too easy to create complex types with questionable value all over your code. Any time a developer wants to unravel a pre-existing complex type, it feels like working with C++. It's utter garbage. No. Having types is always better than not. If you have a complex functionality, it is going to have a complex type. But now you KNOW its complex and not have to unravel its complexity for the 5th time this month. I had to write something like this recently: ``` pub SearchInfo { matches: Arc<HashMap<PathBuf, Vec<(usize, (usize, usize), String)>>> } ``` This is complex, yes, but just by reading the type and names given to it: 1. `Arc`. So that means it can be safely shared across thread. 2. `HashMap` from `PathBuf` to `X`. So I am probably mapping file/folders to X. 3. `Vec<(usize, (usize, usize), String)>`. So the first `usize` denotes the line number. `(usize,usize)` denotes the start and end characters and the `String` is the whole line itself! Just imagine unraveling this whole crap if its all simply a JavaScript `Object`.