> There is the saying in software engineering that the number of undiscovered errors in the system is proportional to the number of discovered errors. I think

> There is the saying in software engineering that the number of undiscovered errors in the system is proportional to the number of discovered errors. I think that's true for software developed under similar processes, but (for instance) if you're comparing software that has unit tests and software that doesn't, the constants are probably wildly different. Your tests (or even the process of thinking about writing testable code) will discover a number of errors but will hopefully drive the number of actual errors down. To be clear, I'm not making a statement on whether Rust or Ada is better-tested or better-developed, but I will note that Rust goes out of its way I'm also curious about these bugs - I'm aware of bugs in the standard library (which is developed in the same repo as the compiler), but they only undermine memory safety against hostile source code, and hostile source code has lots of other options (unsafe, /proc/self/mem, ptrace, ...), i.e., the Rust compiler is not a sandbox. I'm not aware of severe bugs in the compiler, and I'm not aware of standard library bugs against hostile user input by well-intentioned source code - e.g., there shouldn't be things like the 2001 sudo "vudo" exploit.