> That's an interesting take, because I don't see Rust as being more abstracted in this way than C++ is. Obviously it's more abstracted than C, but by the time

> That's an interesting take, because I don't see Rust as being more abstracted in this way than C++ is. Obviously it's more abstracted than C, but by the time you get to "modern" C++ you're programming in a much higher-level language than C. I agree, but C++ doesn't force you to write good, modern code, and so in lecture, we are better able to show examples of bad code that well-intentioned people might write and discuss the consequences. Also, you can't directly make syscalls in Rust without using "unsafe" or a library, and it's harder for students to see how programs interact with the kernel when that extra stuff is in the way. I'm checking out Firecracker right now, and it looks like a really neat project! I'd love to talk more about virtualization in the class, especially since I feel that our current curriculum doesn't spend as much time preparing students for the modern cloud computing architectures they are bound to work with. Curious: can you think of any safety issues you've encountered in Rust or bizarre bugs that Rust's type system didn't save you from? Those often make great lecture examples, and while we always remind students that Rust is not a panacea, I don't think we had any good concrete examples.