Aren't these two points contradictory? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding.
> Rust’s borrow checker is a a pretty powerful tool that helps ensure memory safety during compile time. It enforces a set of rules that govern how references to data can be used, preventing common programming memory safety errors such as null pointer dereferencing, dangling pointers and so on. However you may have notice the word compile time in the previous sentence. Now if you got any experience at systems programming you will know that compile time and runtime are two very different things. Basically compile time is when your code is being translated into machine code that the computer can understand, while runtime is when the program is actually running and executing its instructions. The borrow checker operates during compile time, which means that it can only catch memory safety issues that can be determined statically, before the program is actually run.
>
> This means that basically the borrow checker can only catch issues at comptime but it will not fix the underlying issue that is developers misunderstanding memory lifetimes or overcomplicated ownership. The compiler can only enforce the rules you’re trying to follow; it can’t teach you good patterns, and it won’t save you from bad design choices.
This appears to be claiming that Rust's borrow checker is only useful for preventing a subset of memory safety errors, those which can be statically analysed. Implying the existence of a non-trivial quantity of memory safety errors that slip through the net.
> The borrow checker blocks you the moment you try to add a new note while also holding references to the existing ones. Mutability and borrowing collide, lifetimes show up, and suddenly you’re restructuring your code around the compiler instead of the actual problem.
Whereas this is only A Thing because Rust enforces rules so that memory safety errors can be statically analysed and therefore the first problem isn't really a problem. (Of course you can still have memory safety problems if you try hard enough, especially if you start using `unsafe`, but it does go out of its way to "save you from bad design choices" within that context.)
If you don't want that feature, then it's not a benefit. But if you do, it is. The downside is that there will be a proportion of all possible solutions that are almost certainly safe, but will be rejected by the compiler because it can't be 100% sure that it is safe.