Honestly, it's pretty encouraging. All of the problems they listed are things I see as being very nearly solved.
For example, I ran into the futures issues. Now I use nightly's async/await, and it's a massive improvement while still being early days.
I also use the Non Lexical Lifetimes feature, and see a lot of ergonomic wins there.
The other stuff is being worked through as well - Failure is coming along, and I hear good things. Libraries are always improving.
I would be a lot more terrified if these issues were surprising, or not being dealt with, or were extremely hard to fix without breaking the language, etc. Instead, it's a list of things I've run into and can even solve today with a few features.
It depends on perspective, I guess. After all, they say
> While we hit some speed bumps, I want to emphasize that our experience with Rust was very positive overall. It’s an incredibly promising project with a solid core and a healthy community. I’m confident these issues will end up being solved over time.
Rust is still a relatively new language, and most of the cons list fits in with that. They also talked about how they worked around these issues, and what we're doing to address them, which is pretty wonderful.
I'm also happy to talk more about any of the specific points here to add more context; for example, the comment about error-chain and failure is spot on. error-chain is the older, more battle tested library, failure is the newer one that's try to address some issues with it. The ecosystem is still shaking out. (I personally love failure.)
It does match expectations for a language of Rust's maturity and complexity though.
One needs to have a robust instinct for separating the excited statements of early adopters and fans from the more mundane reality: developing a language ecosystem takes a long time and other languages have had decades to iterate.
