The author links to a previous post on the subject, from mid-2015, so they clearly have at least tried Rust in the past.
And while many Rust messages are OK, one should be careful not to confuse familiarity with Rust's error messages[0] with Rust's error messages being good (being inherently informative and good).
Here's a clearer example (fixed since): http://dbeck.github.io/My-First-Steps-In-Rust/ note two issues:
* the error message is busy as all hell which is a common issue in Rust, before you've built the habit and learned how they're structured Rust error messages often look daunting. By comparison Elm makes much more extensive use of spacing and tries to avoid repeating the same information (e.g. file names) over and over.
* the suggestion it provides is just plain wrong, it suggests implementing Debug for T, but T is always a standard number which already implement Debug, what's missing is a trait bound. To a beginner that was not a helpful suggestion as it would only send them on a wild goose chase (of trying to implement Debug on either T or i32/f32, and good luck with those).
> The blog explaining the author's disdain for Rust mostly just seems to whining about the borrow checker.
So? Just like monads in haskell, the borrow checker is hard until it "clicks" (and then it fundamentally shifts your understanding and it becomes hard to understand not getting it).
[0] and experience/understanding for the various possible sources of the most common ones, but that you can build for any compiler, even G++'s pages of template expansion garbage from the early aughts