Looking at the limited samples and construct definitions in the spec, I think there is a lot of influence in the languages syntax from the syntax used in rust. Is there was a specific reason for this decision over inheriting syntax where possible from GLSL or in general, traditional C like constructs?

I might be incorrect on this but for the most part, I find that most of the constructs currently present in the spec were expressable in GLSL with less text. Using the EXAMPLE 1 from the WGSL spec:

[[location 0]] var<out> gl_FragColor : vec4<f32>;
fn main() -> void {
    gl_FragColor = vec4<f32>(0.4, 0.4, 0.8, 1.0);
    return;
}
entry_point fragment = main;

Could be expressed with more condensed syntax using a form of (slightly modified) GLSL:

layout (location = 0) out vec4<f32> gl_FragColor;
void main() {
    gl_FragColor = vec4<f32>(0.4, 0.4, 0.8, 1.0);
    return;
}
entry_point fragment = main;

The differences are small but I think overall there is a lot of syntax present in the spec that does not have reasoning as far as I can see. It is instead inherited from a more complex language where the verbostity in syntax avoids ambiguity, but as WGSL does not inherit the realted complexities, the syntax does not serve a clear purpose to me.