Why it's always the borrow checker that bugs the haters? You don't even see it work most of the time, because instead of using references everywhere, like most C++ers are conditioned to do, not only you can move values (doesn't necessarily mean actually performing memory operations), but also the compiler checks that you don't use the variable from which the value has been moved. And even if you do use references everywhere, they don't usually cause any problems, unless you decide to put more than one reference in a often used struct. I often use both shared (RO) and exclusive (RW) references as function arguments and rarely have to specify lifetimes manually, because automatic lifetime elision done by the compiler is sufficient in most cases.
Who said I’m a hater? That was a very aggressive response. All I said is that I think Rust is not a good language for a scripting system. In scripting, I’m not always writing something “correct”, but good enough. Mutability everywhere helps do so, but the borrow checker gets in the way of that.
I've reached some mechanical sympathy with it, I think.
You get some intuition for which methods to use, many structs have a pretty breadthy pallet, and then you can mostly just ignore it; quickly write your algorithm and let the compiler walk you through any oversights with the way you may have coded processing tasks.
Also helps to know that the docs support search by type signature since functions operate on or return owned, borrowed, or mutably borrowed, and generally just think of borrowed as a pointer for heuristic reasons.
