> has an order of magnitude more security issues But then there is a LOT more C/C++ software as well, so it makes sense that when you have a lot more code you

> has an order of magnitude more security issues But then there is a LOT more C/C++ software as well, so it makes sense that when you have a lot more code you'll also have a lot more bugs. > than (similarly well written) software in other languages. Why isn't that similarly well written software being used instead of the C/C++ software when the latter ends up with more bugs? > And until recently C and C++ were more or less the only viable options for writing it. I do not think that this is the case, there have been alternatives for pretty much as long as C existed. For example Object Pascal existed for decades before Rust and while it doesn't have as many compile-time guarantees as Rust does, it still is safer than C and C++, provides a similar amount of functionality while not losing in terms of low level functionality. Yet outside of a few exceptions (mainly during Borland's heyday) people still went with C or C++ despite those languages not providing anything special compared to it. And there have been other languages too - i've seen Ada being brought up often as a much safer language (safer than Pascal too) with a strong type system, yet still being usable even on tiny devices. What makes people stick with C and C++ when other solutions existed for years and how would Rust change that when other languages apparently failed?