I think you have ideas about these types that make them seem overcomplicated! Either that, or I'm way smarter than the average programmer and really am massivel

I think you have ideas about these types that make them seem overcomplicated! Either that, or I'm way smarter than the average programmer and really am massively wasting my talent :) but if you ask me the first is much more likely. I'm awed by the clever things people post about on here and am still not 100% sure I understand what a monad even is, but Result and Option seemed very easy to pick up. The one liner functor stuff in particular I think is a big distraction. To me the basic building block is the match statement - you match on a result, if it's Ok(T) then you get to do something with T, and if it's Err(e) then you get to do something with e. At that level it's very simple. And as far as I know (no expert though) any clever expression can be decomposed into a series of nested and possibly repetitive match statements, the apparent magic is illusory. But I do hear you and I get the appeal of Go from that angle, obviously sticking with what you like is a good idea. Just saying Rust isn't that bad :)