> It's not a blaming game. Code written in C has issues because C has issues, but are you then saying that Rust has no issues? Will never have any issues? What'

> It's not a blaming game. Code written in C has issues because C has issues, but are you then saying that Rust has no issues? Will never have any issues? What's the bar here? For a given value of "issues," that's an accurate portrayal. Statically verified memory safety at the language level is a central part of Rust's mission statement. This is an essential difference from C in how it approaches that problem space. Rust might "have issues" in the sense that compiler bugs are exposed by particular edge cases, or that dealing with certain problems is needlessly difficult or verbose, but reducing everything to "issues" to portray it as equivalent to C is absurd. You might as well say they both have "syntax" and conclude that all code written in Rust is still written in C.