Because gov agencies say so? Also, memory safety vulnerabilities is the largest class of vulnerability by count today by a large margin (70% of the total) and

Because gov agencies say so? Also, memory safety vulnerabilities is the largest class of vulnerability by count today by a large margin (70% of the total) and cost a lot of money to bigger companies. As changing language stacks also cost a lot of money, there needs to be a strong incentive to do so. Getting memory safety without compromising applicability to the lowest levels of the stack is one such incentive. Rust also doesn't have a lot of drawbacks, from my experience (professional use for years, coming from C++) and from recent reports from Google[1] (in particular, the learning curve steepness[2] and productivity penalty[3] are overstated). [1]: https://opensource.googleblog.com/2023/06/rust-fact-vs-fiction-5-insights-from-googles-rust-journey-2022.html https://opensource.googleblog.com/2023/06/rust-fact-vs-ficti... [2]: Anecdotally, these ramp-up numbers are in line with the time we’ve seen for developers to adopt other languages, both inside and outside of Google. (Same report) [3]: Overall, we’ve seen no data to indicate that there is any productivity penalty for Rust relative to any other language these developers previously used at Google. (Same report)