> "you can build whatever want on top of it" is a flashy way to say that "rust can't do that" in this instance. It most definitely is not. "It" in "on top of i

> "you can build whatever want on top of it" is a flashy way to say that "rust can't do that" in this instance. It most definitely is not. "It" in "on top of it" refers to the language itself and the "core" subset of "std", which designed to cater for situations without any OS-level allocation at all, not the "std"s library's handling of OOM. Given that Rust can work without allocation, it can work with custom allocation-failure handling too: as a minimal proof, start with core only (no std) and create custom Box and Vec types (this probably isn't the best path, but it shows it is possible). > I suspect rust adoption would be much more effective if it wasn't presented as a panacea-like solution (it isnt) that the entirety of computer science has always dreamed of (it hasn't) and is ready to be used to write literally everything on earth in. > The hubris of the rust team empowers projects like zig, which are clearly communicating what their offering can and cannot do. The Rust team is good at clearly communicating the boundaries of Rust. Others may misinterpret that/be over-enthusiastic, but they're often called out (even by members of the Rust team) when it is noticed.