> ...Priority must always be placed on the ability of developers to read and understand code.
The importance of this can't be overlooked, which is debatably why people and companies are constantly looking for a way to escape heavily complex languages and syntax. It is part of the thinking behind somewhat newer languages like Go, or newer offshoots like Vlang (https://vlang.io/), which has a focus on high readability and general usability.
If a language is being geared towards the majority or mass appeal, then it has to find that correct sweet spot. There is simply going to be a cap on how far complexity will be embraced or how much specialization will be found useful.
“Genius is making complex ideas simple, not making simple ideas complex.” — Albert Einstein
> ...I am not convinced one can make something solving all the things Rust solves which is substantially simpler as language.
Debatably, such languages making the attempt, are less likely to succeed. Off rip, Rust already occupies that space. So, trying to make a "better Rust", which is already a specialist in that field (safety) and has already got "the push" from large corporate backers (Mozilla, Samsung, Quantum...) will usually mean failure, remaining in niche status, or overcoming incredible odds (like hitting a Lotto jackpot). The more the language specializes on that particular use case, then arguably the less general appeal and general use. And if there is already competition doing it better or being more known for that focus, the harder the hill to climb.
For that matter, trying to make a "better C", is another tough hill. Not only because C is so entrenched and established, but that there is already a long list of quasi "better Cs" out there such as Object Pascal, D, Nim, etc... Add in more complex or confusing syntax, less features, less functionality, or less usefulness... Then the hill gets even more steep. Hitting the bullseye, just isn't easy.