Who is even claiming that? > Look, I like Rust. I really, really do, and I agree with the premise that memory-unsafe languages like C++ should not be used anym

Who is even claiming that? > Look, I like Rust. I really, really do, and I agree with the premise that memory-unsafe languages like C++ should not be used anymore. But claiming that Rust would have prevented the massive outage that the world went through last Friday is misleading and actively harmful to Rust’s evangelism. A wild counter-claim appears. Where’s the original claim? Maybe this is just based on the ephemeral hot-take microblogging mill which is not supposed to make sense out of context or even half a week after the original submission. But I would really appreciate a citation for such “people are saying” claims. Here’s what I saw on HN: - People complaining about Windows; Linux would have handled it better - People complaining about how it ran as a kernel module or whatever I literally saw no one complain about the language it was written in. And I tend to notice that since I’m such a programming language armchairer. > Having CrowdStrike written in Rust would have minimized the chances of the outage happening, but not resolved the root cause that allowed the outage to happen in the first place. Thus, it irks me to see various folks blanket-claiming that Rust is the answer. It’s not, and pushing this agenda hurts Rust’s adoption more than it helps: C++ experts can understand the root cause and see that this claim is misleading, causing further divide in the systems programming world. I resent this concern trolling over “why can’t we get along?” That the Rust community is especially tech-evangelic is a myth that simply won’t die, thanks in part to these unsourced claims about the bravado Rustaceans versus the wise C++ experts which result in “further divide” (three unsourced claims thus far). Look at any up-and-coming language. You won’t have to look far in order to find the wide-eyed enthusiasts, trust me. > And this is where some Rust enthusiasts will zero in and say “Ah-HAH! We got you, fools. If the code had been written in Rust, this bug would not have existed!” And, you know what, that’s literally true: this specific bug would not have happened. Don’t you love when the enthusiasts do that? Allegedly. > And, you know, there are many more C++ developers that work in kernel space than Rust developers know kernel internals (oops, another citation need). So, naturally, a large portion of C++ developers can smell the rubbish in this claim. Which is unfortunate because this increases animosity between the two communities, which goes against the goal of converting folks to safe languages. Rust folks know that Rust can definitely help make the situation better, but C++ folks cannot get bought into it because the arguments they hear don’t resonate with them. Here we see a further development in the animosity between the (seasoned/expert/kernel) C++ developers and the Aha-Gotcha Rust enthusiasts. Why can’t we just get along?