I'm not so sure about the attitude. > After reading about the newest glibc vulnerability, I have decided to see how much effort there is in rewriting parts of

I'm not so sure about the attitude. > After reading about the newest glibc vulnerability, I have decided to see how much effort there is in rewriting parts of glibc in a safe language. If I were a C programmer, especially if I were a C programmer who worked on glibc, I might feel a little bit insulted that remark. Safety is a complicated concept, and calling Rust "safe" and C "unsafe" oversimplifies things, especially if your Rust code includes unsafe blocks. See also http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/heartbleed-in-rust http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/heartbleed-in-rust. I don't think we have anything to lose by being as diplomatic as possible with these sorts of things. We can acknowledge that Rust's safety is a work in progress, and that we're still learning about the drawbacks.