(And I will admit here that "Rust doesn't allow you to X", as I said originally, is not an accurate statement objectively. Attempting to rephrase that objection to be better, I would say, by the time you are doing all this stuff, you are outside the gamut that Rust was designed for, so by doing that program in Rust you are taking a lot of friction, but not getting the benefit given to someone who stays inside that gamut, so, it seems like a bad idea.)
> Refactoring a program so that most things' lifetimes are the same does not feel to me like it's in the spirit of Rust, because then why have all these complicated systems, but maybe you feel that it is.
I think a common sentiment among Rust programmers would instead phrase this as, "the complicated system we designed to find bugs keeps yelling at us when we have lots of crazy lifetimes flying around, so presumably designs that avoid them might be better."
In this sense, even for someone who doesn't feel the borrow checker is worth it in their compiler, this can just be taken as a general justification for designs in any language that have simpler lifetime patterns. If they're easier to prove correct with static analysis, maybe they're easier to keep correct by hand.
