One thing that isn't often mentioned is that complicated programming languages nearly always come with complicated tooling. C++ has cmake, which is self-explanatory, and even cargo is pretty complicated. I'm still not sure what is a crate vs. a package, and the amount of times I've had to look up the bindgen tutorial, and the amount of steps involved, is too much. This isn't even to mention compile times, debug-mode executable speed, etc. This isn't the complexity moving from the source code to the tooling, this is complexity created in the tooling itself required to manage the complexity created by the language.
And they attract programmers which love complicated code. Of course they don’t actually call it complicated and in fact they see it as elegant and state of the art.
People have figured this out about C++, but they’re still in denial about Rust. Notice how in the article the borrow checker is the best kind of feature which emerged to handle an existing problem.
In reality the borrow checker is a hammer which forces all code to look like something the borrow checker can nail down. Rust is similar to C++ and it looks like it will be used outside low-level programming or systems programming and in those cases one can gladly give up e.g. manual memory management, obsessively avoiding copying, having to specify how wide an integer is and so on at least in parts of the code.
