Flattening Rust’s learning curve

It's like reading "A Discipline of Programming", by Dijkstra. That morality play approach was needed back then, because nobody knew how to think about this stuff.

Most explanations of ownership in Rust are far too wordy. See [1]. The core concepts are mostly there, but hidden under all the examples.

    - Each data object in Rust has exactly one owner.
      - Ownership can be transferred in ways that preserve the one-owner rule.
      - If you need multiple ownership, the real owner has to be a reference-counted cell. 
        Those cells can be cloned (duplicated.)
      - If the owner goes away, so do the things it owns.

    - You can borrow access to a data object using a reference. 
      - There's a big distinction between owning and referencing.
      - References can be passed around and stored, but cannot outlive the object.
        (That would be a "dangling pointer" error).
      - This is strictly enforced at compile time by the borrow checker.

That explains the model. Once that's understood, all the details can be tied back to those rules.

[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-01-what-is-ownership.htm...

That really doesn't explain the model because you have completely left out the distinction between exclusive/shared (or mutable/immutable) borrows. Rust made a large number of choices with respect to how it permits such borrows and those do not follow from this brief outline nor from intuition or common sense. For example, the no aliasing rule is motivated not by intuition or common sense but from a desire to optimize functions.

The most complicated aspect of the borrows comes about from the elision rules which will silently do the wrong thing and will work fantastically until they don't at which point the compiler error is pointing at a function complaining about a lifetime parameter of a parameter with the trait method implying that the parameter has to live too long but the real problem was a lifetime in the underlying struct or a previous broken lifetime bound. Those elision rules are again not-intuitive and don't fall out of your explanation axiomatically. They were decisions that were made to attempt to simplify the life of programmers.