[1] https://hirrolot.github.io/posts/rust-is-hard-or-the-misery-...
Now if you said, "Rust has some rough points at the intersection of generics, closures and async programming," I'd say that's absolutely true!
This might rather confirm my point, since engineers using a specific programming language quite often have a contorted picture of how code in other languages is written, as they become more and more acquainted with their main tool. If we compare Rust closures with those of ML languages, it becomes pretty clear how natural closures are in ML and tricky in Rust.
Not quite a sensation either to anybody who happened to use closures in a typical Rust code, which, apparently, happens to have quite a lot of generics and async!
> This might rather confirm my point
It might, but it doesn't, because I don't only use Rust. Notice also how you've moved the goalposts from "fundamentally broken" (sensationalist drivel) to "how natural closures are in ML and tricky in Rust" (a not unreasonable opinion with lots of room to disagree on the degree of "natural" and "tricky").
Generics and closures work just fine:
use std::ops::Add;
fn adder<T: Copy + Add<Output=T> + 'static>(x: T) -> impl Fn(T) -> Box<dyn Fn(T) -> T> {
move |y| Box::new(move |z| y + x + z)
}
fn main() {
let add23 = adder(2)(3);
assert_eq!(10, add23(5));
assert_eq!(13, add23(8));
}