I commonly see this assertion but it never made much sense to me: Rust is not that complex, and it's certainly nowhere near the complexity of Scala or C++ let alone worse (to me the sole topic of C++ constructors & assignment feels more complex than the entirety of Rust).
What it is is highly front-loaded, especially through the early learning cliff of integrating the borrow checker.
Meh I would say Rust is just as complex as Scala. I actually don't think Scala is all that complex, it has few features, they're just write powerful and general ones which take some getting used to I think.
I believe a big part of the famous Javascript semantics can be emulated in Scala with a library.
Once upon a time I wrote a toy Android app with Scaloid, and tried to use some on-device print-debugging. toast("foo") worked just fine. toast(42) crashed at runtime. Turns out Scaloid offers an implicit conversion from Int to CharSequence, and it even doesn't turn 42 into anything like "42". I'm not kidding [1]. In Android you normally have "resource identifiers" as integers with no compile-time type information, and then at runtime you never use these as actual numbers, instead you every single time pass them to some function like getText or getDrawable. Sound like the perfect case for implicit conversion, right?
