How many times did you write `for<'a>` keyword or manually used `Pin<...>` type, or specified `where 'a: 'b`? I personally didn't need to reach for this "dark art" in at least last 2 years - thanks to Rust compiler developers making lifetime inference much better compared to how it's been few years ago.

But there are still some warts around e.g. generic async functions, where you do sometimes need to think very hard about lifetimes and know plenty of tricks. Arguably those are situations where memory management is hard, but it's not something that e.g. TypeScript, C#, Swift or Scala would make you think about.

You seem to misunderstand the intent of my comment.

The feedback (from Rust devs, at least) on this language seems to boil down to "But why isn't it Rust?", which also seems to be kind of a resounding sentiment around many different languages that Are Not Rust. Conversations around Zig and Go get derailed (by Rust devs) all the time.

So my question is, if a language Is Not Rust, and ultimately your demand is to use Rust, why even bother complaining? Just use Rust. The rest of us don't want Rust, so languages in this space (this space being defined as "Statically typed, compiled languages that Are Not Rust"), can be interesting. Derailing to poke at all the ways a language isn't Rust is just a waste of everybody's time.