Fair point about other kinds of guarantees, I suppose. Now that you mention it, there has been some speculation about what a GC'd Rust would offer (worth remem

Fair point about other kinds of guarantees, I suppose. Now that you mention it, there has been some speculation about what a GC'd Rust would offer (worth remembering that IIRC early versions of Rust had a GC, until they figured out they could do without it). However I don't think that significantly changes my main point about where Rust primarily competes today, and its primary value proposition. Re safety: Rust has, um, a very specific idea of what "safety" means. It's basically things that could cause RCE, or at least incorrect writes I guess. Memory leaks are specifically not considered "unsafe". :) And really, the worst you can do with a memory leak is DoS, until the target reboots. Handling mutable data across threads is included, though, which Java at least is somewhat famously not great at; it's really easy to write Baby's First Race Condition Demo in Java. So it feels really weird to say Rust's safety guarantees are a strict subset of Java's. OTOH I agree it's hard to imagine Rust beating out Haskell for raw safety guarantees by any measure, and I have no idea for OCaml (despite having written a lot more Ocaml, heh).