> It comes across as a slightly more colorful way of putting down people who use other languages as not "real" programmers This is not my intention. > In prac

> It comes across as a slightly more colorful way of putting down people who use other languages as not "real" programmers This is not my intention. > In practice, most of the important code that everyone relies on to defend us (assuming here you mean security-critical or safety-critical code) is not written in Rust. So who are the real "soldiers"? Rust is relatively new. The real soldiers who use C bravely fight with of-by-one errors and buffer overruns and I really don't want them to do that. > There's certainly a case to be made for using safer languages for critical code. We can afford using safer languages for a lot of code. > On the other hand, using stricter static analysis for existing languages (and other kinds of testing like fuzz testing) will find bugs quicker and avoids boiling a few oceans. No, it will not. It may find few bugs here and there, but will leave whole classes of problems untouched. You can't bolt security onto a language. And we do not want to find few bugs, we want to be sure they are not there.