> Especially that the real strictness of Rust is from the ownership system, which allows basically only tree-shaped lifetimes, and that’s not a restriction like

> Especially that the real strictness of Rust is from the ownership system, which allows basically only tree-shaped lifetimes, and that’s not a restriction like a program being type-safe, where non-type safe programs don’t make sense. It is an “arbitrary” constraint that has obvious advantages for not memory-managed languages, but is absolutely not a tradeoff I would take when not necessary, as random lifetimes are just as valid. Rust's tree-shaped lifetimes are a big benefit for me, as someone who values not wasting RAM. (Seriously. Why did I have to upgrade my computer to 32GiB of RAM when I haven't appreciably changed what I use it for since I bought it wth 4GiB of RAM and sized that amount based on intent to run a VirtualBox VM or two? ...JavaScript bloat. ...though I will admit that I also upgraded the CPU, RAM, and motherboard in the transition from 4GiB to 16GiB... but that was because a RAM socket went bad.) I think of borrow-checker errors as "Wait a minute. Can you clarify what you intended here? Did you want multiple ownership? A copy? Was accessing it this far down a mistake?"