> It seems like in terms of subjective productivity, memory-unsafe languages have going for them a lot. Otherwise how do you explain so many programmers still w

> It seems like in terms of subjective productivity, memory-unsafe languages have going for them a lot. Otherwise how do you explain so many programmers still willingly choosing them? Honestly? And this might be a hot take - exactly the same way as I'd explain people rejecting structured programming way back in the day. It was the new thing on the block and people were not used to it, and preferred to just sprinkle GOTOs in their program just like they always used to do rather than learning a new paradigm. As someone who used to professionally program in C++ on an expert level in the past and now has completely switched to Rust I can tell you that (at least subjectively for me) Rust is way more productive than C++ ever was. Once you internalize how the language works the limitations of Rust just disappear. You learn how to instinctively write code that's idiomatic, and it just stops slowing you down. But it also gives you a ton of new features that end up speeding you up compared to C++, e.g. sum types, pattern matching, cargo, great standard library, destructive moves, proper modules, #[derive], good error messages, etc. Memory safety can also be significant productivity boost because you can (or at least I do) just churn out code without thinking about it too much and just rely on the compiler to make sure that it's memory safe. Can this code trigger use-after-free? Is this iterator valid? What's the lifetime of this pointer? Instead of thinking about all of these you can use those brain cells for something else.