Part 2 claims that Rust's type system is superior to all others.
The third video covers the intersection of common rust types with deeper programming theory. I found it fascinating. The video also introduces expert-level patterns and terminology (like turbo fish) not found in the Rust book.
This
anti-rust video contains a contrarian view. From the (official) text summary:
"There is something uniquely irritating about it's zealous and misleading
marketing, wasted potential and gleeful disregard for the accumulated
genius of decades of research. For all its obsession with security,
rust's packaging and linking system end up creating more insecurity than
it's limited model of safe memory can eliminate."
I suspect that my mentor, Bob Fitzwater, would have held a similar skeptical view.
Summary
I am not qualified to judge the competing claims. But maybe it's time to look into
Ocaml :-)
I doubt that Rust will affect Leo, but I might eventually change my mind. For sure, Leo's desktop version, written in Python, will remain the reference standard.
Edward