@jmw150 Ah I see. Well, I agree that there is a misunderstanding in the Rust community regarding "safety" as many of them seem unaware of formal verification tools and even things like Valgrind which anybody can easily use in C. Not to mention, a lot of the old-school memory bugs are caught by the OS (at least in Linux kernel) compared to 10 years ago. So, all in all, I still think Rust has cool things to offer such as cargo but strong typing and memory safety is not particularly novel. I think a lot of this comes from the often-quoted "70% of MS vulnerabilities were due to memory leaks". And, I think it's important to differentiate between Microsoft and the rest of the world as in this scenario it's not appropriate to extrapolate and say "most software errors are caused by memory leaks" which many people in the Rust community seem to think.
I think for any serious programmer that statement should ring a bell as obviously wrong since clearly in GC languages this is not even an issue, we can see that actually most bugs are due to logical errors in the program, not actually accounting for edge cases, changing requirements, breaking compatibility in modules, or purely dumb programmer errors, not necessarily memory.
Having said all of that. I still think Rust feels ergonomic and nice to use.
@zpartacoos I think it is an okay language. But it is over-marketed, and the language is not what it advertises itself as.
That makes it irritating for me because I get a bunch of new, or not very smart, programmers recommending it.
So I make it a point to nip rust hype in the bud. Languages like Ada are safer and standardized, if you are aiming for reliability. Plenty of other things in Rust already exist in other languages or tools as well.