Seems like a fairly decent syntax. It’s less simple than many systems languages because it has a very strong type system. That’s a choice of preference in how you want to solve a problem.
I don’t think the memory safety guarantees of Rust could be expressed in the syntax of a language like C or Go.
> It’s less simple than many systems languages because it has a very strong type system.
I don’t think that’s the case, somehow most ML derived languages ended up with stronger type system and cleaner syntax.
Notably, this is not the case. C++ std::vector is specialised for bools to pack bits into words, causing an untold array (heh) of headaches.
And "wasteful" is doing a lot of lifting here. In terms of memory usage? Yes. In terms of CPU? The other way around.
That depends on your architecture and access pattern. In case of sequential access, packed bools may perform better due to arithmetic being usually way cheaper than memory operations.