I have a basic understanding of Rust… and this maybe off target - read that as a warning of errors below!
Would Rust be more intuitive and a lot simpler to understand, if it was just formed around the language objects that it’s actioning, rather than the traditional programming language names? For all that “structs” and “impl” etc suggest, would using natural language encourage better programming by reflecting the reality that Rust is looking to achieve?
I wonder that these Rust objects relate to these language items:
//struct = structure == object == Noun //enum = enumeration == arbitrary instances == Pronouns //fn = functions == actions == Verb //traits = == characteristic == Adjective //impl = implimentation == method == Adverb = How | When | Where | to What extent | Comparative & Superlatives //Types == obj relationships == Prepositions //Logic primatives == basic elements == Conjunctions //Panic == disjoint == Interjections
For example, why talk of “structs” when instead we could just suggest Noun?; why talk of impl when we could suggest Adverb?..
Off topic: I don’t know lifetimes well enough yet to know how to articulate those. It seems several instances where those are challenged, can be formed in ways that do not need explicit lifetimes stated - when[=in what form of problem] are lifetimes required and when are they not?