> What's the alternative, have twice as many critical vulnerabilities? Oh don't be silly: The software with the best security track record is written in C (e.g

> What's the alternative, have twice as many critical vulnerabilities? Oh don't be silly: The software with the best security track record is written in C (e.g. qmail) so there are obviously many alternatives. You could sit and think for a bit, for example. > Just because fuzzing, testing, proving still let bugs exist doesn't mean it pointless. Let alone doing it in memory unsafe language. I never said pointless, just that you were wrong what what they do. > That said, I'm not judging your code Really sounds like you are. I talk about code that's finished, and you talk about code that isn't finished. It totally makes sense to me how someone who wants to never get finished would use rust, but friend, that isn't me.