This case against Rust is not particularly compelling: 1. It strawmans the pro-Rust case by suggesting that Rust is presented as a panacea. 2. It argues that

This case against Rust is not particularly compelling: 1. It strawmans the pro-Rust case by suggesting that Rust is presented as a panacea. 2. It argues that because Rust can’t help with everything, it helping with an important issue (memory safety) is irrelevant. The crux of it is basically this: > But this is just throwing the baby out with the bath water. Clearly. Because we have tonnes of safe code, and no one knows why its safe. We do know that it is safe. We know that it is memory safe. This rhetorical conflation of memory safety and some other form of safety is an issue. > We need diversity in strategy. We need to actually understand what security means and how existing programs that ARE secure, are written that way. Absolutely. And using tools that help eliminate entire classes of bugs is an important part of that diversity of strategy.