> Well… Many Rust enthusiasts treat it either as a silver bullet or everything else as unholy (unsafe). I don't think anyone here is saying that, at least in t

> Well… Many Rust enthusiasts treat it either as a silver bullet or everything else as unholy (unsafe). I don't think anyone here is saying that, at least in this thread the parent(and myself) were both careful to qualify there might be contexts that it could be useful in. If you see anyone saying that Rust solves every single problem then feel free to call them out for being full of shit :). I'm not going to be giving my designers a Rust tutorial the same way we did with scripting Lua, you're still going to have a FFI somewhere which will require unsafe and a bit more care. However having had maintained pretty significant codebases in quite a few languages I will say that Rust code is more stable, crashes less and still runs in the same footprints as C++(C gets the codesize edge by having a much smaller stdlib and surface area). It's about knowing where your tools do well and where they have rough edges and a better tool is appropriate. Having to switch between C, C++ and Rust codebases on a regular basis I think you're underselling the complexity of C++ and overselling how difficult Rust is. C++ has a huge surface area, you have to figure out what subset you want to use(exceptions: y/n?, RTTI: ditto, stdlib or custom containers, etc). Then you get into Rule-of-5, move semantics, template metaprogramming, undefined behaviors(don't use global constructors/destructors). I could easily list 20 years of various ways I've seen C++ explode in spectacular ways(volatile semantics anyone?). If you want to use C, Zig, or C++ more power to ya. No one is forcing you to use Rust but for those of us who are interested in a language that isn't dragged along with decades of baggage Rust offers a compelling development story and largely delivers on the areas it aims to hit(accessible systems development, memory safety and first-class tooling in my experience).