Safety is definitely part of implementations at least as much as it is a property of languages. The baseline measure of that is with compiler error messages. Cl

Safety is definitely part of implementations at least as much as it is a property of languages. The baseline measure of that is with compiler error messages. Classically bad(as in, this is what you'd get in many environments circa 1980) error messages just terminate and say "error code 100", and then you'd go look in your reference manual to figure out what error code 100 meant, because the system was too crude to have actual error printouts. Maybe you'd use a machine code monitor, or roll your own trace logs. So you'd be mostly in the dark as to what is wrong and how to fix it, and debugging was default-hard rather than default-trivial, shaping the entire nature of the programs you wrote towards easy wins that would not break catastrophically. Rust, on the other hand, has invested so much into its error technology. It tells you what the offending lines are, the type of error, and gives a best-effort to point out the underlying issue causing the error. It guides you towards a code style that best exploits the nature of the errors, allowing you to take "risky" moves that only the compiler can successfully guarantee, and in-the-large, to an architecture that follows the grain of the compiler instead of fighting with it.