Very good point in there about the effect investment has on objectivity. Proponents conflate a specific approach for memory "correctness" checking with some ju

Very good point in there about the effect investment has on objectivity. Proponents conflate a specific approach for memory "correctness" checking with some judgment of what is "correct", or not if it doesn't fit in the checker model. I get a lot of juice out of a solid linked list abstraction in C, it has many benefits such as modest footprint leading to naturally extensible and composable object lists everywhere instead of fixed arrays that have to overallocate and break when it's not enough for some usecase. The lifecycle of the allocations that bind to the list can be opaque, but in it's not opaque to valgrind and leaks are visible without additional in-code instrumentation. If the valuable uses of that abstraction cannot be handled by the borrow checker, it just means that is a restriction imposed by that checker implementation, it is not telling us that this architecture is not "correct".