As a Rust developer (and former C++ developer), I agree with much of what the author writes. I feel that Rust is a largely better language for my tasks but yes,

As a Rust developer (and former C++ developer), I agree with much of what the author writes. I feel that Rust is a largely better language for my tasks but yes, Rust doesn't yet cover all the use cases for C++. I feel that the reasons to pick C++ for any new development are dwindling, but they still exist. However, this author, like many, does not understand what safety means. 1. There is much more to safety than memory-safety. Safety is about protecting your invariants. A program that is not safe is a program in which things that happen that are contrary to the intent of the developer. 2. Memory-safety is just one of the many tools in the safety toolbox. Without memory-safety, it's really easy to shoot yourself in the foot. With memory-safety, it's still possible, but you have to work harder at it. 3. Segmentation faults or stack overflows are what happens if you break memory-safety and you are extremely lucky. In most cases, what you get is random memory corruption. Do you really want memory corruption in a trading platform? 4. Security and safety are related, but they are different topics. See https://yoric.github.io/post/safety-and-security/ https://yoric.github.io/post/safety-and-security/ (self-promotion).