The case for Rust is not only memory safety, but also unexpected state mutation safety, as well as multi-threaded programming safety, as well as async programmi

The case for Rust is not only memory safety, but also unexpected state mutation safety, as well as multi-threaded programming safety, as well as async programming safety, as well as (partial) logic error safety (e.g., forgetting to release a lock for resource access) and so on. Anyone who's ever worked on a large codebase will agree without a second thought that finding a bug takes (at least) ten times more effort than writing code, wrestling even the strictest of compilers, so the case for Rust, effectively, is the philosophy of shifting as much responsibility on the compiler as possible and thus reducing the potential bug surface as much as possible. A human being is not capable of consistently avoiding all bugs that human beings realize can be made. A compiler, on the other hand, is capable of always eliminating all bugs that compilers realize can be made. The knowledge of such potential bugs is transferred from a community of experienced programmers to a compiler through an advanced type system for a programming language and a specialized structure of interfaces for a standard library.