Both of those languages will semantically deadlock: forget to send a message on a channel and a different thread will sit there waiting forever. It&#x27;s not a mutex-deadlock, but it achieves the same thing. Neither of those languages protects against this. (And Rust has exactly that level of &quot;deadlock&quot; freedom: it has channels too.)<p>In any case, you seem to be ignoring what everyone is saying: Rust doesn&#x27;t guarantee deadlock freedom, but it still tries to help. Mutexes can be an important building for some things, but they&#x27;re not the final story. There&#x27;s atomics and channels in the standard library right now, and now that 1.0 is released, there&#x27;ll be a growth of even better abstractions.<p>One of the people working full time on Rust has a PhD in concurrent programming, and has it as a personal goal to make Rust great at it. You can see his initial work on his blog[1], and read his thesis which introduces &quot;reagents&quot; (something he has expressed interest in implementing in Rust)[2].<p>1.0 is the start for Rust, not the end.<p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;aturon.github.io&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2015&#x2F;08&#x2F;27&#x2F;epoch&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;aturon.github.io&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2015&#x2F;08&#x2F;27&#x2F;epoch&#x2F;</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mpi-sws.org&#x2F;~turon&#x2F;turon-thesis.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mpi-sws.org&#x2F;~turon&#x2F;turon-thesis.pdf</a>