You're really just dogmatic making assertions. I don't really see much backing these assertions up. Making them more firmly isn't making your case more convinci

You're really just dogmatic making assertions. I don't really see much backing these assertions up. Making them more firmly isn't making your case more convincing. -- Let me make a silly argument. Let's say you write a program in rust, a sort of elaborate turing tape that interprets C++ code and evaluates it as a C++ program according to all standards and rules. To the end user it is indistinguishable from a C++ interpreter, but between the C++ code and the system is a layer of rust. According to standard rustacean dogma, this program will simultaneously be guaranteed to be memory safe because it is rust, and inevitably have memory corruption bugs because it is C++. This is surely a contradiction. It cannot both be incorrect and correct at the same time.