To note:

> Out of the bunch, Rust has impressed me the most. They have delivered on much of what we set out to deliver with Midori, but actually shipped it (whereas we did not). My hat goes off to that team, seriously, because I know first hand what hard, hard, hard work this level of type system hacking is.

But see also:

> In particular, I’m still conflicted about whether all those type system extensions were warranted. Certainly immutability helped with things far beyond safe concurrency. And so did the side-effect annotations, as they commonly helped to root out bugs caused by unintended side-effects. The future for our industry is a massively distributed one, however, where you want simple individual components composed into a larger fabric. In this world, individual nodes are less “precious”, and arguably the correctness of the overall orchestration will become far more important. I do think this points to a more Go-like approach, with a focus on the RPC mechanisms connecting disparate pieces.

I don't think this is incompatible with Rust's goal, which is to bring safety to the sort of low-level domain where C is currently dominant and systems can't afford to be structured as isolated nodes communicating only via RPC. In contrast, Midori was aimed at a higher-level general-purpose domain, like Go (and Erlang, too, which is even better than Go at the "cluster of nodes" approach, yet doesn't have a type system at all).

Could it be, that many desicions for Rust have been made to make it more appealing to C devs?

Like, opting out of purity annotations or forced immutability?

I'm not saying these desicions are good or bad, I don't know much about system programming. But I often ask myself what the main motivators for a language are.

FWIW,after spending a couple of years with rust as my primary programming language, I'm convinced that they made the right decision wrt mutability (immutable by default, but mutability availale when needed), as rust's lifetime system eliminates nearly all the remaining pain points around mutability (data races).

On the other hand, I think it is very important that some notion of purity be incorporated, even if only as an opt-in.

> spending a couple of years with rust as my primary programming language

Oh, how did you achieve that? :)

Probably not with too much difficulty. 1.0's alpha was nearly 2 years ago. The github repo goes back to mid 2010: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/graphs/contributors