@jamwil @mcc That's an interesting perspective - I thought the syntax was relatively small and it was much more viable to learn "all of it." Granted it's not quite as small as C, but I'd say it possibly has fewer sugars than python in terms of having syntax constructs for things that you can express in other ways, keeping in mind Rust needs you to express a lot more in general. (e.g. in types)

There's definitely a handful of constructs that you encounter so rarely that most people forget they exist (`@`-patterns most prominently IMO, also `for` lifetimes) but they're not sugar, they mean something distinct.