> On the other hand, Rust definitely does not have "Fast compilation",
True, though several people are now working on compiler performance.
> and although debatable, I would say that "Simplicity" is not one of Rusts many virtues.
I've found that Rust seems as simple as it can be given the problem it's solving. For instance, lifetimes and borrow checking aren't trivial, but I have a hard time thinking of a simpler abstraction that has the same safety and performance properties.
Another way to look at it: C is "simpler", in some ways, but it pushes the corresponding complexity into the heads of developers and the code of helper/wrapper libraries and tools.
I think it's one of these things where C is 'simple' but using it often isn't. Taken to the most absurd extreme, Brainfuck is even simpler. So I'm not sure that simplicity is necessarily a virtue in a programming language.
That said, I don't think Rust is that complicated - it's just that a lot of the concepts it uses are unfamiliar to a lot of people and 'best practices' are not always set in stone because of that, which causes confusion - that's more of a maturity thing than anything else. Contrast with C++ (or C# or Java) which certainly is a complex language, but people aren't that confused by it because there are a wealth of books which prescribe the best ways to do things in any given scenario.
I'll repeat what a lot of other people have said on this one. I think Rust puts the vast majority of its complexity up front, so that you have to deal with it even in toy programs. However, once your toy program is working, it can expand into a real program without uncovering bugs or running into a lot of new complexity. C on the other hand, can make toy programs appear simple. However, there can be a lot of undefined behavior in those programs, which will turn into serious bugs as the programs get more interesting. I like this article for talking about some of those cases: https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1520
True, though several people are now working on compiler performance.
> and although debatable, I would say that "Simplicity" is not one of Rusts many virtues.
I've found that Rust seems as simple as it can be given the problem it's solving. For instance, lifetimes and borrow checking aren't trivial, but I have a hard time thinking of a simpler abstraction that has the same safety and performance properties.
Another way to look at it: C is "simpler", in some ways, but it pushes the corresponding complexity into the heads of developers and the code of helper/wrapper libraries and tools.