I agree that there are technical limitations, but I think those should be sought to be overcome. I disagree with your implicit assertion that all languages are

I agree that there are technical limitations, but I think those should be sought to be overcome. I disagree with your implicit assertion that all languages are equal (or close enough). If it is possible to make a class of error completely disappear then it should be done when not cost prohibitive, and languages can be designed such that there is no cost to avoid certain errors. Sure one boundary error could have been detected in any language, but there will always be fewer in a language that simply disallows them. Consider how infrequently Gotos are used now there are no longer errors with setting state before a jmp/goto, because modern constrol flow tools function, case, inheritance, generics and others tools have strong semantics with good implementations that work well and reduce complexity. Unfortunately language adoption is not a pure meritocratic affair. Bad languages can stick around for far too long because of external factors. Consider that Ada never had real use outside the DoD when it was shiny and new. That group isn't exactly known for evangelizing. The Rust community has better marketing strategy and has chosen a highly meritocratic approach to language design.