> there are many other memory safe languages around and there has been thousands in the past. Yes, and in fact they write about how they are replacing C/C++ wi

> there are many other memory safe languages around and there has been thousands in the past. Yes, and in fact they write about how they are replacing C/C++ with Kotlin or Java. All three are memory safe languages. But Rust is the only low level language of the three. This is Rust's killer feature. Of course, JavaScript is memory safe and so is Lua. But they are high level languages. > Additionally, many security issues are not due to memory safety. I think it depends on the domain the program is in. If you are a program managing some security property, like e.g. TLS encryption, then virtually any bug you have might be a security issue. Same goes for OS kernels. But if you are e.g. an image decoder library, then there is little security impact if your output is a weirdly colored image. But memory safety issues might still be a problem for your decoder library. Overall the number being cited is 70/30, as in, 70% of security issues are memory safety ones, and 30% are ones which are not about memory safety. https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-70-percent-of-all-security-bugs-are-memory-safety-issues/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-70-percent-of-all-se... So you can reduce the number of security issues by 70%, isn't that great?