Rust developers concerned about complexity, low usage

There is space in the world for a difficult complex language that produces low level operating system and library code, we just don't need to be writing every application using it, since ordinary people should also be able to program computers.

I don&#x27;t understand how Rust is being weighed. It&#x27;s a systems programming language seemingly intended for critical code with baked in security and &quot;programmer mitigation&quot;.<p>I&#x27;ve heard and watched some pretty wild claims about it being the new Uber language. If it targets c, Cpp, then it might end up just out of sight for most programmers.<p>If it reaches lots of Linux and Windows integration, then it&#x27;ll become the new &quot;foundational&quot; language, but even that doesn&#x27;t mean widespread adoption.

I have done a fair amount of Rust. The complexity is not in the borrow checker or lifetime. It’s in the combination explosion of the of generic, traits, lifetime, and constraints. When a struct takes on these, all functions and impls need to specify them. The amount of brackets becomes very distracting.

For what it&#x27;s worth, I&#x27;m currently learning Rust. My primary motivation is that it offers the opportunity to get a job where I can use functional programming techniques (even if it isn&#x27;t necessarily a &quot;functional language&quot; in the way something like Haskel is).

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;austral-lang.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;austral-lang.org&#x2F;</a>