I agree about some of the points made here, but others are wrong. Sure you can write safe C, but maintaining and extending such a code base requires far more at

I agree about some of the points made here, but others are wrong. Sure you can write safe C, but maintaining and extending such a code base requires far more attention than working on a Rust code base. I think the criticism about additional RAM and CPU requirements is spot on. I'd love if the new Rust foundation would sponsor further engineering to reduce both requirements (although in many instances, it's an either or tradeoff). As for the future, Rust has pioneered many features that clang lacks. E.g. incremental compilation, or multithreading (still not enabled by default).