> I wish the Rust evangelists would come to terms with the fact that to many developers memory safety is not a particularly important concern (for many differen

> I wish the Rust evangelists would come to terms with the fact that to many developers memory safety is not a particularly important concern (for many different and often very good reasons) and talk more about other aspects of their language. Seriously. However, I've seen a lot of comments to that effect from C and C++ programmers who don't want memory safety. I come at it from a different angle: I'm a Java developer, so I already have memory safety. Pointer arithmetic, dangling pointers, and buffer overflows are not allowed, there is a garbage collector, and so on. In fact, most of the currently popular languages other than C and C++ are memory safe in similar ways. So, in terms of memory safety, Rust does not give me anything critical that I don't already have. When choosing among the memory-safe languages for a real-world project, I'm going to need a pretty compelling reason to choose Rust instead of Java, Scala, Go, Ruby, Python, etc. -- especially when it is so much easier to hire developers for more popular languages.