Zig generics are dynamically typed; Rust generics are statically typed. Everyone in Rust was absolutely aware of dynamically-typed generics and they were actively rejected.
Explicit allocators were likewise rejected. They were deemed to add too much noise in the 99% case in which you just want to use the system malloc. You might disagree with that decision, but none of Rust's designers consider it a mistake.
I'm also very skeptical that the ability to automatically switch between async and sync would be the right decision for Rust. It may be the right decision for Zig. But in Rust we have to, for example, work properly with OS TLS and any sort of automatic async/sync switching would be a footgun.
Zig generics are dynamically typed; Rust generics are statically typed. Everyone in Rust was absolutely aware of dynamically-typed generics and they were actively rejected.
Explicit allocators were likewise rejected. They were deemed to add too much noise in the 99% case in which you just want to use the system malloc. You might disagree with that decision, but none of Rust's designers consider it a mistake.
I'm also very skeptical that the ability to automatically switch between async and sync would be the right decision for Rust. It may be the right decision for Zig. But in Rust we have to, for example, work properly with OS TLS and any sort of automatic async/sync switching would be a footgun.