> Rust makes you think about everything you're doing, the ways in which your programs use resources, and every possible class of errors. This is incredibly useful for writing fast and correct software, but will be overhead for people who just want to move fast.
I agree with the reduction in development speed. But the cognitive load is less, at least for me. Rust's type system, error handling primitives, language server and compiler messages seem to guide and reduce the effort needed to write good programs. The reduced development speed is often an acceptable compromise for all the advantages Rust gives - especially the cognitive load. The language also seems to save a lot of debugging time - so the reduced development speed may not be of much consequence.
> Overall, I don't think that Rust is the right solution to all problems.
I guess this depends on how comfortable you are with the language. Rust is my second choice after shell scripts to automate things. The point is, your statement is correct for only a class of developers - those who are new to Rust. For others, it's just as good as any other language for almost all problems.
I agree with the reduction in development speed. But the cognitive load is less, at least for me. Rust's type system, error handling primitives, language server and compiler messages seem to guide and reduce the effort needed to write good programs. The reduced development speed is often an acceptable compromise for all the advantages Rust gives - especially the cognitive load. The language also seems to save a lot of debugging time - so the reduced development speed may not be of much consequence.
> Overall, I don't think that Rust is the right solution to all problems.
I guess this depends on how comfortable you are with the language. Rust is my second choice after shell scripts to automate things. The point is, your statement is correct for only a class of developers - those who are new to Rust. For others, it's just as good as any other language for almost all problems.