Rust

I also come from python, actual meta-programming concepts are usually implemented via meta-classes, which I would describe as more complex than rust macros, in the "it takes longer to fully understand" sense.

You could also generate python code and execute it if you don't mind the obvious security implications, but that's only a possibility thanks to it being an interpreted language, while rust macros can provide validations and readable error messages out of the box.

To your post's point in general:

• Python uses exceptions, rust uses errors as values, making rust more predictable.
• Python uses Nullables (None | T) which require hand-written handling, instead of rust's Option<T> which has convenience methods and syntax support (... = maybe?).
• Python has GC by default, and making a function fast requires delegating it to another programming language, meaning you usually would write python for software that needs not be performant.

I have more points if you'd like to understand my position, and am willing to explain if you need.

Part of why Python can do this is that it runs completely differently from Rust. Python is interpreted and can run completely arbitrary code at runtime. It's possible to exec arbitrary Python.

Rust is compiled ahead of time. Once compiled, aside from inspecting how the output looks and what symbol names it uses, there's nothing that ties the output to Rust. At runtime, there is nothing to compile new arbitrary code, and compiling at runtime would be slow anyway. There is no interpreter built into the application or required to run it either.

This is also why C, C++, and many other compiled languages can't execute new arbitrary code at runtime.

even the meta-programming is done in plain Python

@decorator comes to mind, and only the keyword is part of the language.

Common Lisp has meta programming built-in but no one uses Common Lisp for a good reason.