The author does mention Rust: > New and hip GC'd languages don't care about the priorities efficient game engine code has. Safety-enforcing languages like Rust

The author does mention Rust: > New and hip GC'd languages don't care about the priorities efficient game engine code has. Safety-enforcing languages like Rust are going somewhat off already by definition, as they're focusing primarily on safety, which is not the focus for most game code. However, I disagree with this. Rust does enforce safety, but once you have a feel for how the borrow checker works (which isn't hard at all coming from C or C++), it fades into the background. The real benefits of Rust for games are the build system, the module system, affine/linear types, and all the various syntactic features like pattern matching and expression-based control structures that make it way less crufty to read and write than C or C++. Rust's biggest weakness for game dev (again) isn't the enforced safety, but the still-growing ecosystem. There's a few really good low-level libraries (Glium, for example), but if you stray beyond them it turns into a nightmare of writing your own FFI definitions and unsafe glue code.