> The thing they rewrote also worked great in production. It didn't for them, that's why they rewrote it. > Rust is being sold as magically making software sa

> The thing they rewrote also worked great in production. It didn't for them, that's why they rewrote it. > Rust is being sold as magically making software safe and people selling that completely ignore the fact that logical bugs are also a thing. By whom? I don't think memory safety bugs are the only class of bugs, and neither do you, so who are you arguing against? > Which Rust evangelists find difficult to acknowledge because security is that one thing that Rust has going for it. Hard disagree. Rust also offers a solid type system, pain-free dependency management and all-around good tooling, just to name a few. It's much more than a "memory-safe C++" or whatever. > And when processing arbitrary user output, it'll crash badly If your definition of "badly" is "at a well-defined point, without any memory corruption", sure. But even here memory safety prevents what could be a much more painful debugging experience.