I know about lifetime elision. I originally got into Rust based on my knowledge of ARC in objective-C, my love of type-inferencing, and blog articles like this

I know about lifetime elision. I originally got into Rust based on my knowledge of ARC in objective-C, my love of type-inferencing, and blog articles like this one, promising static compile-time management of object lifetimes. The point that I'm making is that learning about the necessity of explicit lifetime management in Rust, and the awkward syntax supporting it, was, for me, a splash of cold water in the face. I think that there are a lot of C and C++ programmers who read about Rust and read articles like this and get similarly excited about the prospect of static object lifetime management, but ask themselves whether it's really possible to completely hand lifetime management over to the compiler. And of course it isn't - sometimes you still need to concern yourself with the vulgar details of managing object destruction, and Rust's syntax for that is kind of ugly. Blog articles like this are deceptive. Why are we exposing C++'s warts for the purposes of demonstration (and others here are right - the examples here are contrived) without mentioning something as ugly as explicit lifetimes in Rust? To make a point? What is that point?