Revisiting a 'smaller Rust'

A bit over a year ago, I wrote some notes on a “smaller Rust” - a higher level language that would take inspiration from some of Rust’s type system innovations, but would be simpler by virtue of targeting a domain with less stringent requirements for user control and performance. During my time of unemployment this year, I worked on sketching out what a language like that would look like in a bit more detail. I wanted to write a bit about what new conclusions I’ve come to during that time.

The purpose for our language

Re-reading my previous post, I’m struck by how vague my statement of purpose for this language is. My entire blog post is really focused on differentiating the language from Rust, and I frame the discussion in terms of what I would remove from Rust, and how the language would not support certain use cases of Rust. This isn’t really surprising: I was working on Rust, and I never had taken the time to think of this hypothetical language in itself the way I have now.

The goal of this design was to create a language that could compete as an “application programming language.” The design goals of this language were:

  1. It should try not to be notably hard to learn. To the extent possible, it should be familiar to most programmers. Since I’m comitting by the exercise to trying to apply ownership and borrowing to the application domain, it will necessarily contain some features most programmers find pretty novel (like Rust “lifetimes”). But in general, we will try to reduce the onboarding ramp and simplify things.
  2. It should typecheck and compile quickly. It should not have bad batch compilation performance, and it should be designed with incremental recompilation in mind, to enable a good experience for users who integrate their compiler into their development environment (with a full IDE or even just with a plugin for a text editor). I didn’t even mention this concern in the previous post. As others have discussed elsewhere; Rust’s poor compile times are not the result of its advanced type system, but of a combination of other factors. Some are essential, like the runtime guarantees it makes (e.g. monomorphization) whereas others are accidental, like some aspects of its module system. None of these factors would be essential for our language, so we would carefully avoid these pitfalls.
  3. It should have a runtime which suits it well to the major use cases for application programming languages today. This means mainly being well suited to the developing for the web, both front-end and back-end. (Being well-suited to the mobile platforms is unrealistic for a language not sponsored by those platform developers, unfortunately.) Being well-suited to CLIs would also be beneficial.

I want to focus the rest of this post on my thoughts for evolving Rust’s ownership and borrowing system, but before I do that I want to briefly touch on other design decisions that fell out of this thought process:

  • I would target WASM, and only WASM, for this language. WASM with reference types is suitable as an environment for application programming (with shims for future extensions like properly integrated garbage collection). This way the language designers can piggy back on the work being done at many companies to establish WASM as a good shared VM platform, instead of being responsible for things like platform compatibility or using the very slow LLVM. Targeting WASM would also mean easier FFI integration into other languages that run on the same VM as WASM; that is, other languages targeting WASM (like Rust) and JavaScript.
  • I would explore control-flow-capturing closures as a core language abstraction, similar to Kotlin. As I wrote in an earlier blog post inspired by the design on this hypothetical language, I think these are a great way to integrate effects well with higher order function abstractions.
  • I would provide syntactic sugar for Result and Option as the way to handle null and errors, similar to Swift.
  • As I wrote in a previous blog post, I would provide green threads as the sole concurrency model, with language or standard library provided channels and cells (discussed later) as the way of sharing data between threads. How these green threads are mapped to CPUs is a matter for the runtime you choose to run the compiled WASM in.
  • I didn’t get to the point of designing a polymorphism system; I would probably start with a strenuous comparison of Rust’s traits and Go’s interfaces, and (knowing the other features of the language) try to figure out what from Rust’s traits is unimportant.
  • I would be hope the language could avoid macros, which (in the case of pattern based macros) add a second meta language to the language that advanced users need to understand, and in all cases substantially complicate compilation.

Resource types and Data types

But now onto the meat of this post: the ownership and borrowing model. In my previous post I made some points that I largely agree with still, but would probably reframe. Here’s what I wrote:

Rust works because it enables users to write in an imperative programming style, which is the mainstream style of programming that most users are familiar with, while avoiding to an impressive degree the kinds of bugs that imperative programming is notorious for. As I said once, pure functional programming is an ingenious trick to show you can code without mutation, but Rust is an even cleverer trick to show you can just have mutation.

Resource acquisition is initialization: Objects should manage conceptual resources like file descriptors and sockets, and have destructors which clean up resource state when the object goes out of scope. It should be trivial to be confident the destructor will run when the object goes out of scope. This necesitates most of ownership, moving, and borrowing.

Aliasable XOR mutable: The default should be that values can be mutated only if they are not aliased, and there should be no way to introduce unsynchronized aliased mutation. However, the language should support mutating values. The only way to get this is the rest of ownership and borrowing, the distinction between borrows and mutable borrows and the aliasing rules between them.

In other words, the core, commonly identified “hard part” of Rust - ownership and borrowing - is essentially applicable for any attempt to make checking the correctness of an imperative program tractable. So trying to get rid of it would be missing the real insight of Rust, and not building on the foundations Rust has laid out.

I still think this is Rust’s “secret sauce” and it does mean what I said: the language would have to have ownership and borrowing. But what I’ve realized since is that there’s a very important distinction between the cases in which users want these semantics and the cases where they largely get in the way. This distinction is between types which represent resources and types which represent data.

In this mental model, resources are types which represent “a thing” - something with an identity and a state which can change with time as the program executes. In Rust, almost everything is a resource: a String is a resource a HashMap is a resource, most user types are resources. In contrast, data types are just “information” - a fact, which has no meaningful identity, contains no state that evolves over time, etc. In Rust, types like integers, &str, and so on - which all implement Copy - are data types. (However, a mutable reference to those types is a resource: more on this later.)

In Rust, only types which can be cloned by a mempcy can implement Copy. This is because Rust is designed to encourage treating all heap memory as a resource, the management of which the end user can control by selecting when the type representing that memory is dropped. This is very valuable in the domains which Rust is intended to target. However, for higher level applications that most programmers write, control over heap memory is not usually important. This is what users mean when they want to “turn off the borrow checker” - they want to let a garbage collector figure it out for them when this bit of data is freed, because to them it is “just data” and not a resource.

This hypothetical language would lean into that distinction. Using persistent data structures (like those from Clojure) and garbage collection, the set of types which could be treated as data types would not be restricted in this language. The string type would be a data type, rather than a resource; a dynamically sized array of data types would be a data type as well, as would a map with keys and values that are data types.

Meanwhile, types representing IO objects would always be resource types. Collections containing resource types would also be resource types. Composite types (like structs and enums) which contain a resource type would also have to be a resource type. There would be an easy way to convert data types to fully owned resource types as well; in the case of persistent data structures, converting a data type to a resource type would be the point at which the “copy on write” operation occurs. As a result users can use ownership semantics for things which impact global and external state (like IO) and for cases where they know it will be an important performance optimization.

And the difference in how the language treats data and resources would be identical to the difference between how Rust treats Copy and non-Copy types. Only resources would have affine “ownership” semantics - in which moving them invalidates the previous binding. Data types would have the standard non-linear semantics users are familiar with from most languages. This means that writing algorithms using data types would be functionally the same as writing algorithms in other imperative languages, easing the onboarding of users to the language and limiting their errors related to linear types to areas where they are certain to care.

Borrowing and the two reference types

The previous discussion covers the ground of ownership, but what about borrowing? It turns out that this distinction between resources and data is also the distinction between the two reference types in Rust. A shared reference implements Copy, and is properly understand as “data” (with no meaningful identity of its own) and an exclusive/mutable reference does not implement Copy and does not make sense to treat as “data” - it is exclusive (meaning it has an identity) and it is mutable (meaning it has updating state).

This means that these two reference types would function as temporary views of another type as either a data type or a resource. It doesn’t matter if the underlying type is data or a resource; a “data view/shared reference” of any type is data, and a “resource view/mutable reference” of any type is a resource. This allows users to temporarily switch modalities for a particular value, depending on what they need. Of course, just like in Rust, a “data view” would not give the full power over the type that a “resource view” has, whereas a “resource view” could always be degraded into a “data view.” (This is the same semantics that references have in Rust.)

Note also that I’ve said “view” rather than “reference,” because the language is designed to make no guarantees about the representation of types. Depending on what makes the most sense for the implementation, either all types are “reference types” unless the compiler can unbox them, or all types can be automatically boxed by the compiler if it determines it needs to. So these views should not be imagined as “pointers to” the underlying type, they may have the same representation as that type.


I previously said that the language would have two primitives to communicate between concurrent subprocesses: channels and cells. I have nothing interesting to say about channels, but I want to discuss the Cell type, the language’s only shared state primitive.

The Cell type would be implemented as a garbage collected read/write lock. How this lock is implemented is the business of the runtime (e.g. on a runtime which runs greenthreads in parallel, it would use atomics, whereas on a runtime which runs greenthreads on a single thread, it would not need to.) A Cell has data semantics, but allows constructing resource views of the underlying type (in essence, performing a write lock.) Thus the Cell type allows treating resource types as if they were data, even when calling resource-view methods. It essentially moves the compile time checks on resource types to the runtime, removing also any guarantees about when the type will be destroyed.

Note that this language would have no Send and Sync traits, because all types would have Send and Sync semantics: everything can be shared across all green threads. Thus there would be no restriction at all about what could be put into the cell type.

Ideally, the Cell type could even hand out an unguarded “resource view,” as opposed to a newtype like the MutexGuard that Rust uses; it would be great if the compiler could somehow insert unlocks when the resource view goes out of scope. This may require something analogous to monomorphization though, and so it could impact compile times and implementation complexity; it may be a luxury we’d have to live without.


I don’t have any intention of working on developing these ideas into a real language, so I thought publishing the result of my design work would be the best way to give that work a bit of impact. I hope anyone considering designing a new application language would consider these ideas as a way to give users guaranteed correctness around resource management. I’m open to hearing from people who are interested in these ideas; though as with most email I recieve I may regrettably fail to respond.

Since this design work was in a spirit of direct contradiction to Rust’s goals, it’s hard to see it having a big impact on the design of Rust. One thing I’d mention, though, is that the discussion of an Autoclone trait (types with non-affine semantics even though their clones require code execution) is relevant to this distinction I’ve made between resources and data. I don’t think most types should be Autoclone (my list would include: Rc, Arc, and maybe persistent collection types like Bodil Stokke’s im), but I do think it would benefit users to have the choice to not treat memory like a resource when the bookkeeping necessarily to control that management is at cross-purposes with their end goals.

Finally, I think if anyone were to pursue this, the big area that I’ve handwaved over is the “persistent data structures” part. I discuss converting between data types and resource types, even temporarily: it may require novel research to create collection types that could sometimes have the performance calculus of persistent collections (cheap to copy, expensive to mutate) and sometimes have the performance calculus of mutable collections (cheap to mutate, expensive to copy).