> What I'm saying is that all of the boogeyman stories about terrible C++ code generally don't apply to modern C++ if you work within its idioms -- memory corru

> What I'm saying is that all of the boogeyman stories about terrible C++ code generally don't apply to modern C++ if you work within its idioms -- memory corruption bugs are few and far between, and easy to find and fix. I think people are increasingly frustrated by this refrain, because there's empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. Now, it's entirely possible that you are starting greenfield projects with only super senior engineers in domains where a few safety critical bugs just don't matter, and in that case the learning curve required for memory safety just isn't worth it. That's a business decision you can make, and I wouldn't judge for a second. There are always trade-offs in engineering. However, "I don't write bugs" just isn't credible in 2023. I'm sorry if this seems uncharitable, and I appreciate that you're making a more qualified claim, but safety is not a "boogeyman." > I'd love to read about the architecture of well-functioning Rust GUI app. GUI is certainly a still developing area in Rust and has a long way to go. It's easily the weakest part of the ecosystem. That being said, it's still totally possible to build GUIs in Rust. The most common architectural pattern would be the Elm architecture, which avoids many of the issues of ownership that more traditional OO patterns introduce. I've also had a lot of success recently using immediate mode libraries, although obviously this won't work for every application.