> I can only assume that the bug classes you are referring to would have been eliminated by using essentially any language with a type system. That's not entir

> I can only assume that the bug classes you are referring to would have been eliminated by using essentially any language with a type system. That's not entirely true. As an easy example, Go has a type system but it's relatively anaemic and recreates the "billion dollar mistake" of nil. I have personal experience with Go applications that have broken in production due to nil dereferences, to bugs related to type-switching off `interface{}`, and to the language's inability to enforce exhaustive case statements in general. While the unique safety features in Rust are generally about memory safety, it still takes a much more safety-conscious approach in general than most languages that are statically typed.