"As an aside, static code analyzers are not able to provide the same kind of guarantees rustc does to arbitrary C++." Yes, and now the question becomes - is th

"As an aside, static code analyzers are not able to provide the same kind of guarantees rustc does to arbitrary C++." Yes, and now the question becomes - is this due to hard limitations of the C++ as a language (in the sense that provision of such guarantees is simply impossible for static code analyzers, no matter what), or is it that static code analyzers just didn't provide so far (but can and most likely will)? I personally recognize and am thankful for Rust's effort to raise general awareness on the safeness aspect. This (awareness rising) would have been indeed hard to do without forcing this safety to the language core design, although I don't see it working well for Rust in the long run (after people will start having quality alternatives and won't have to pay the "safe by default" price that Rust asks of them).