Interesting, I find rust is pretty dense, but mostly in a good way. It packs a lot of important information into the code, which is useful for reasoning about it. Languages with simpler syntax tend to hide that information (and sometimes because it's irrelevant due to the kind of tradeoffs they make, like all the languages you mention have some form of GC). Haskell I would say is especially hard for me to read, when there's so little syntax the code is just a sequence of functions and symbols without obvious delimiters it becomes a lot harder for me to understand the structure of it.

Part of it is the explicitness mandated by the language (i.e. when dealing with Optionals or Results, you have to deal with both cases or explicitly state which you expect as an invariant). There's also curious (imo) choices on the part of rustfmt that seems to favor density of code that way.

Again, without stating something more substantive about why the syntax is "incomprehensible" to them, my best assessment is always going to be "skill issue".

Counterpoint: Rust is easy to read, and none of it was designed to be hard to read.

If you make a website listing the languages you do understand, people who are concerned can consult it before they begin a project.

> insinuating laziness baselessly

> intentionally designed to yield hard to read code

I think if you assume that syntax you find odd/difficult was intended to confound you, I can safely make assumptions of my own.