Comment by aw1621107

> It is sad that we did not end up with a SIMPLE programming language that solves the memory safety problem.

We did, arguably. Those languages are called JavaScript, Python, Java, C#, etc. Those languages tend to be eschewed in certain niches, though, and it's there that simplicity tends to be harder to achieve.

> What we needed was Rust-- i.e Rust without all the non-safety related extras that make it different - it's all the non-safety add ons that makes Rust into a Rube Goldberg machine.

I think it might also be worth considering that some people find those "non-safety related extras" a good thing. Dropping backwards compatibility and/or familiarity, just like everything else, is a tradeoff, and that tradeoff might be worth it if you think the resulting semantics are nicer to work with.