Calling the learning curve a fallacy is a bit of a fallacy itself. Sure, there's an upfront investment in understanding Rust's ownership model. But comparing that to the endless cycle of debugging memory leaks and race conditions in less strict languages? It's like comparing apples to a particularly nasty variety of oranges that explode when you don't handle them correctly.

The notion that Rust demands perfection from the get-go misses the mark. Rust doesn't require perfection; it encourages you to think about your code's structure and safety from the start. And let's be real: in the so-called "fast-paced development environments," how much time is lost to debugging issues that Rust's model would have caught upfront?

The argument that future time-saving is "purely theoretical" is a bit like saying insurance is pointless because your house hasn't burned down yet. When it does, you'll wish you'd been paying those premiums. Similarly, when a Rust program avoids a catastrophic security vulnerability because of its strict compile-time checks, you'll be glad you invested that time upfront.

The idea that garbage collection inherently leads to faster shipping times is also a bit of an oversimplification. Productivity isn't just about how quickly you can churn out code; it's about how much time you spend maintaining and debugging that code. Rust's approach aims to reduce the latter, potentially leading to more sustainable productivity over the lifespan of a project.