If so few people say yes/no then this means to me that either the difficulty is not really as bad as some people try to paint it here (under assumption people d

If so few people say yes/no then this means to me that either the difficulty is not really as bad as some people try to paint it here (under assumption people don't want to continue using a language that is frustrating), or that indeed the difficulty level might be high but developers get a lot in return, so it is still worth to pay that price and continue using Rust, which means - maybe it is difficult, but it is still productive. It is very hard if even possible to objectively assess the difficulty of the language, because difficulty is inherently subjective and depends heavily on prior experience. The fact that there are many people who claim to be more productive in Rust than e.g Python or Java, but at the same time many others that don't share that opinion, IMHO supports my claim this is mostly a matter of a paradigm shift. Also I noticed many developers somehow don't count the difficulty to fix bugs towards the difficulty of the language. And maybe that's also an explanation why we end up with so vastly different opinions.