> I would say the choice of languages without memory safety is more based on legacy than some kind of insightful choice. You say this as if legacy choices are

> I would say the choice of languages without memory safety is more based on legacy than some kind of insightful choice. You say this as if legacy choices are not some of the most persistent choices that exist in technology. I don't disagree that 70% of CVEs is memory safety related, but still my previous point stands that none of the popular kernels or databases are written in Rust. A new database developer with a bright idea is basically confronted with the choice to either: 1. Write it in C and get it merged into Postgres relatively quickly. (Within the year or so) 2. Write it in Rust and also have to implement the rest of a RDBMS, then have to find a user base. When confronted with that kind of choice, most devs would choose option 1 every time and I can't blame them for that even though I love memory safety.