>My big problem is that nobody is working on truly innovative programming languages anymore.

How many languages are truly innovative? I'd say the most recent example is Rust, as you mentioned, being innovative with its borrow checker, but what other recent languages really are?

Many modern languages are not innovative, but just add quality of life features. A good example is Kotlin: Just another JVM language, nothing revolutionary, but I enjoy writing it over Java.

>It goes against the programmer's ego, but the way forward is by adding more restrictions. The people complaining about the borrow checker in Rust just don't get it. If you want programming to improve, you will have to give up the ability to write every conceivable program.

I agree and also disagree. The "ability to write every conceivable program" also means writing programs that are faulty. Maybe that's your point, in which case I don't consider it a bad thing to limit the ability to do so.

A language like C let's you fuck around and find out. It's powerful and "easy". As the saying goes, it gives you a gun and doesn't stop you from shooting yourself in the foot.