I'm not promoting Rust, nor have I actually written anything in it. I do think though it's a step in the right direction. > But you don't get that effect by ra

I'm not promoting Rust, nor have I actually written anything in it. I do think though it's a step in the right direction. > But you don't get that effect by ramming it down other people's throats, you get that effect by showing it in practice. I disagree. I've seen many C programmers who think that C is the be all end all of programming languages. Those people will not be convinced by showing them another technology that is better in practice. The fact that it's actually unbelievably hard to write correct software in C is somehow a point of pride for many people, though I speculate that few of them can actually follow through. Of course there will always be logic bugs in software, even with formal systems and whatnot (i.e. bugs in the specifications). But memory bugs and the resulting security exploits could in many cases be a thing of the past already. Many industries have similar regulations, i.e. seatbelts in cars. If somebody dies because of a faulty or non-existing seatbelt, there will be consequences. If somebody dies because they were talking on the phone and the car didn't prevent it, well, you can't control everything. Is this a buffer overflow? Why was this written in C? No good answer - pay up.