IMHO Rust's ergonomics problems aren't caused by the borrow checker itself, but have the same cause as similar problems in C++ (mainly a "design by committee" approach to language design and implementing features that should be language syntax sugar in the stdlib instead, which then directly results in the stdlib being too entangled with the language and "too noisy" hard to read code).
Apart from the static memory safety USP, Rust is repeating too many problems of C++ for my taste, and at a much faster pace.
I agree with this. The borrow checker itself isn't the problem. That's necessary to make you write correct and safe code anyway.
The problem is that there is too much syntax, too many symbols, and too many keywords. I just keep forgetting how to use impl and lifetimes and single quotes and whatnot. It makes it really tough to use as an occasional language. And if I can't do that, then how can I get confident enough to use it in my job?
> The problem is that there is too much syntax, too many symbols, and too many keywords. I just keep forgetting how to use impl and lifetimes and single quotes and whatnot.
This is exactly how I feel about Rust.
There are some good ideas in there, hiding behind a horrible language design. I am waiting for someone to provide a more developer friendly alternative with the simplicity of C or Go.
It uses compile-time reference counting / lifetime analysis / borrow checking. Which is mostly inlined to the point that there is none of the sort in the compiled output and objects can even live on the stack. It basically looks like Python but is nothing like it underneath, and of course with no GIL. You can run it on JIT or compile it to C++.
There's also Koka with the Perceus algorithm on compile time and looks like a much cleaner language than Rust. It also tracks side effects of every function in a type where pure and effectful computations are distinguished.
In that regard, strangely enough, I find with constexpr code, templates, and concepts, is easier to achieve most compile time code stuff, while staying in C++, than dealing with Rust macros.
Unless the "poor ergonomics" and lack of shortcuts are explicitly what provides the static memory safety.