[at_compile_time]

Rust's real superpower is its tooling. Cargo handles package management, building, testing, documentation, and publishing. The compiler's errors explain what went wrong and where it happened. Installing the toolchain with rustup is quick and painless, even on Windows. I can't know that it's best in class, but it's certainly the best I've used.

I can see another language having a more expressive type system, I've come up against the limitations of Rust's type system more than once, but the tradeoff isn't worth it if I have to go 20 years back in time in terms of tooling.

[pron]

Rust is much older than Zig, though, and there's nothing stopping Zig (or any future language that doesn't adopt Rust's precise set of guarantees) from having the same, or possibly better. Given Zig's immaturity, I certainly wouldn't use it for any serious production software today.

BTW, I'm not saying Rust is bad. All I'm saying is that the attempt at proving it's objectively best by leaning on memory-safety is not really as objective as the people who make that claim seem to think it is.

[at_compile_time]

I hadn't heard of ATS before, and I think that I mistook your using it as an example of "more isn't always better" and thought you were suggesting it as an actual alternative.

I'm looking for the next thing I want to learn, and have been leaning towards logic programming and theorem provers, so you inadvertently piqued my interest.