I've been noticing similar things. Statically typed compiled languages do eliminate the possibility of certain classes of errors getting through to production simply because the compiler will catch the errors. However, a lot of the time, these compiled languages introduce complexities that raise the likelihood of other classes of errors that may actually be more advanced to troubleshoot (looking at you, Haskell, with your lazy evaluation and unpredictable performance). Another language that makes me question the perceived value of static typing is Scala. Until I had worked with Scala almost exclusively for the better part of a year, I actually spent more time fighting with the compiler over code that was logically correct (but due to type-erasure and other things, the compiler couldn't verify) than actually working on real bugs in the application.
I wonder, if all of this is true, what it's impact is going to be in the success or demise of Rust?
I've been noticing similar things. Statically typed compiled languages do eliminate the possibility of certain classes of errors getting through to production simply because the compiler will catch the errors. However, a lot of the time, these compiled languages introduce complexities that raise the likelihood of other classes of errors that may actually be more advanced to troubleshoot (looking at you, Haskell, with your lazy evaluation and unpredictable performance). Another language that makes me question the perceived value of static typing is Scala. Until I had worked with Scala almost exclusively for the better part of a year, I actually spent more time fighting with the compiler over code that was logically correct (but due to type-erasure and other things, the compiler couldn't verify) than actually working on real bugs in the application.
I wonder, if all of this is true, what it's impact is going to be in the success or demise of Rust?
I think that for a programming language it is far more important the marketing around it than the technical qualities.