I am biased, so keep that in mind. > Its compilation is slow. I agree on this. But you can get better hardware, split a large code base into several crates, o

I am biased, so keep that in mind. > Its compilation is slow. I agree on this. But you can get better hardware, split a large code base into several crates, optimize for fast compilation when developing. On the other hand, I feel the guarantees of Rust compilation are discounted. If your code is more correct before deployment, wouldn't that save you debugging time later? My biggest issue is with macros. I like them (and LLMs are good at writing macros) but they make both compilation and LSP ridiculously slow. > It’s complex. No, it is not. There is a learning curve. But after a while, you just alias your "Arc<Mutex<Box<T>>>" and name it something you understand (mypipedtype) and then just fly over the abstractions. There is sunk time to build/architecture your complex type but I see that as investment that can save you time later. > In fact, for many applications malfunctioning is better than crashing What does malfunctioning mean? Leaking your secrets? Compromising your system? Corrupting your data/state? I'd take crashing any time of the day. > When handling lots of mutable shared state (GUI, DB, stateful services, OS/hardware) This is a problem until the whole stack becomes Rust. If you are using lots of extern/FFIs in your code, I really sympathize with your position and you are kind of in a worst of both worlds situation.