to answer your question: austral's language author has a thing against complexity. there is stuff they put in because they were worried about cognitive overhead, or compiler overhead, not wanting the codebase to be incredibly huge or hard to read. i don't really agree with all of that but it's honestly not the reason i mentioned it in the first place, even though it's _apparently_ all anyone cares to talk about here. hidden destructors and overloads mean code is not obviously doing something and depends on contextual knowledge.
now i don't really care about that or share those opinions and i honestly didn't bring the language up to talk about those parts _at all_. i was mostly curious to hear takes on linear types, in conjunction with borrows, where they made a very simple ruleset (about a paragraph) that seems to accomplish a large amount of what rust was aiming for, and how well that would hold up to real world use and if something like that would be interesting to adapt to Nim if it was. it was brought up to my attention in the context of systems/kernel coding contexts where an incredibly high level of defensive programming and correctness would be of interest.
