Don't think I agree. Rust compromises between FP and OO, and I think it's awesome for it. You get the best of both worlds.

I don't want just FP, personally I find it too restrictive.

Ok ok, the actual truth is that there is no such thing as "functional languages". Rust is a good demonstration that languages that offer the ability to statically prevent bullshit are the best---and does so with a familiar syntax, familiar mutation, etc so as not to trip people's buttons.

There is no such thing as OO either, and trait objects are not super common in idiomatic Rust anyways.

I would say that it compromises between ML/Haskell-style FP and procedural. It doesn't have much to do with OO, bar trait objects, and the dot operator (which is almost entirely syntactic sugar).

It's a gateway drug to ML/Haskell-style FP because it eases you into expressive type systems, pattern matching, higher order functions, and pervasive use expressions over statements. Many people have told me that it was much easier to learn Haskell or Ocaml, etc. after learning Rust.

Ah, you beat me to it :).

Yeah, there's "FP" and there's "FP-style," and having FP-style usually gets you 80% of the way to what you want.

All I ask of a language (other things are nice but not required) is no "runtime type errors" and no data races. Haskell, Rust, OCaml give me these things.

[Slightly more formally, the first can be rephrased as "no omnipresent non-obvious partiality excluding that from non-termination".]