There may be more static analysis tools available for C++, but the quality of the static analysis built right into Rust's type system blows all of them out of t

There may be more static analysis tools available for C++, but the quality of the static analysis built right into Rust's type system blows all of them out of the water; no tool for C++ that I've used (Coverity, Infer, PVS-Studio, ...) can reliably prevent use-after-free or data races. Due to the type system, safe Rust code has much less need for sanitizers (leaks and lock order checks are useful) or fuzzers (they'll only find infinite loops); granted, you do have a point in that sanitizers are very useful for unsafe Rust code. There's AFL for Rust: https://github.com/rust-fuzz/afl.rs https://github.com/rust-fuzz/afl.rs [Edit:] With regard to theorem provers, my understanding is that you typically work in some sort of functional language and the correct C/C++ code is generated as a final step at the end (program extraction); certainly Coq and the HOL family work that way. There's already Rust program extraction for Coq, although I wouldn't be surprised if it's not as mature as C yet: https://github.com/pirapira/coq2rust https://github.com/pirapira/coq2rust In other areas, Rust already has an advantage; compare Cargo with the Babylonian chaos of C++ build sytems, where the question isn't even which one you want to use, but how many different ones are imposed on you by external constraints and how to integrate them without going crazy.