There are modern ways to express something safely that is written unsafely in C. What Rust evangelists seem to forget is that there have been ways to do that fo

There are modern ways to express something safely that is written unsafely in C. What Rust evangelists seem to forget is that there have been ways to do that for a long time. The article actually has very little safe Rust in it. It makes me wonder what we are gaining? If the idea is that introducing Rust means that later you can go back and add type and memory safety...why not use C++ in a type and safe by construction way? Why not use Safe D? I'm personally just looking forward to the hype dying down. I'm tired of hearing about it, and most of the time I just click "hide" on Rust articles because I'm not interested and people are starting to sound pretty shrill.