What is the source of that statement? Because honestly, if the future of Rust is to look like this, that would be somewhat horrifying. Python is a great langua

What is the source of that statement? Because honestly, if the future of Rust is to look like this, that would be somewhat horrifying. Python is a great language for beginners and people who get into programming through nontraditional channels without having much of a symbol-pushing background; presumably, being able to parse symbolic expressions naturally is a skill that needs to be learned, and perhaps even needs to be learned early in life to wield effectively. If you don't have the ability, classical systems languages will look like malicious ASCII soup and a language whose code you can actually read like a paragraph of text will be long-overdue respite from this misery; the same perhaps even applies to other non-verbose shorthand (as an anecdote, one of my graduate program's logic-heavy classes is currently suffering from a student who more or less constantly interrupts the lecture to get all the mathematical notation on the board read out to him in natural language). The latest startup/trendy tech boom has made a disproportionate number of people of this type gravitate towards programming, many of them coming from the wider blogosphere/"social internet"; as a result, their opinions regarding what is good or bad and legible or illegible have come to entirely dominate the airwaves. It is all to easy to forget that there is a barely visible core of often significantly more prolific "native" programmers hiding in newsgroups/IRC channels/mailing lists and more often than not having very different measures regarding what constitutes good language design. When Rust came about, its design held the promise to finally deliver something to this group that might offer a way out of the C monastery; having it reorient itself to appeal to more popular sensibilities at this point is bound to cause a lot of hard feelings. Personally, I always found the flat monotonicity of Python code to be rather unpleasant to read and write. Having what some people like to denounce as "line noise" actually enables a very useful visual contrast between "structural" (parentheses, scope boundaries, operators) components of the code and largely user-defined "names". Looking at a piece of code like "if(vals[1]==1 && vals==[1,2,3]) { ... }" allows you to break up the code visually before having read and echoed to yourself even a single word of natural language; this can't be said of a (hypothetical) example like "if vals.at(1) equals 1 and vals equals list(1,2,3):". Adding to that the general lack of code layout flexibility and the deliberate lack of alternatives to express a given pattern, the resulting picture is that the way an experienced programmer would usually gather a slew of information from diagonally skimming over a piece of code (segmenting all of it using the visually distinct "line noise", gathering when and how data is accessed, inferring the original writer's priorities from how the code was spaced out and what constructs were chosen, spotting the names of external dependencies...) is severely crippled.