Rust is walking the path of simplification.
Really?
Author apparently hasn't seen the crazy monstrosity the Rust's preprocessor is.
Otherwise, IMO, Rust and this type of languages - "the perfect cage" - to me are dead end.
(A) I want an utilitarian language. I want language which provides me with strict and weak typing, static and dynamic binding, compiled/jitted/interpreted execution with eval() function. At the same time. Probably all that in different scopes - but the scopes should be able to inter-operate. Think Objective-C++ - but with something better than Objective C on the weak side of things, with bits of Perl-ness built-in.
I want a language which gives me choice. Not another language with dozen theoretical papers why I can't do something and I'm better off for it.
(B) For security, I would rather want an language which can be easily validated and proofed. Rust tries to create a perfect cage - for developers - while the main security vulnerability is the user input. Compilers still can't guess whether I have properly validated the input or not. The Rust went in a different direction: annihilating C/C++ bugs. The problem is that all other bugs programmers make - still remain.