From less than a day ago: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27490596" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27490596</a>
To me, this quite clearly illustrates the problem with languages like rust.<p>They're not simple.<p>Clever programmers flock to them because they have some neat features that seem as if they 'cleverly' simplify the code. The problem is, using these constructs on top of each-other creates code that's increasingly hard to parse as things get deeper.<p>I'd put rust in the lineage of scala, and even perl. They attract programmers that love the beauty of the code - good programmers - but they don't actually help accomplish making maintainable code that solves problems.<p>This is, ultimately, why these languages always occupy a niche but never graduate from it.<p>I'm glad these exist to explore the possibility space. More boring languages will adopt, conservatively, the wins found in the experiment.<p>But if I want to get something done, it's boring languages with boring constructs.