The main purpose of Rust is to be a practical, safe alternative to C++. Go and D are NOT such languages, because of the mandatory garbage collection. From time

The main purpose of Rust is to be a practical, safe alternative to C++. Go and D are NOT such languages, because of the mandatory garbage collection. From time to time there's been efforts to replace C++ with safer garbage collected languages such as Java or C#, and every time it basically failed. Direct control over memory has been proven pretty much essential in high-performance software. Thus, we're still stuck with C++, and we're still suffering for it, having nightmarish bugs and myriads of security holes and whatnot. Rust at least tries to make an honest effort to change that. If and when it gets really fleshed out it'd be a boon to all those poor developers. And please forget your awfully subjective qualms about syntax (seriously, go and program in Haskell if you're all for pretty syntactic and cohesiveness - though I can't guarantee you won't find it "disgusting"). Memory management in the C++ way is bloody hard, and it's a dirty affair. It makes no sense to be repulsed by all the complexity there, because it's unavoidable, and it's a job that has to be done. Of course there's going to be a smattering of syntactical constructs to make memory management less tedious, just like there is extra syntactic baggage on bigger Haskell programs to accommodate the fine control over side effects. Having a memory safe high-performance language with C++-like memory management is a HUGE thing. A while ago I would have dismissed such a thing as a pipe dream, and when I became convinced that Rust could work it was a moment of great rejoicing. Even if Rust ends up on the dumps, there has been at least an effort, and maybe someone will make a better Rust some day. So please try to understand the purpose and rationale behind Rust before dismissing it in a superficial way.