For myself only, there's also an implication that perhaps the authors are a bit more concerned with safety and security in general. (Don't reply with counterexa

For myself only, there's also an implication that perhaps the authors are a bit more concerned with safety and security in general. (Don't reply with counterexamples. I know them already. I mean that as a trend, not a solid rule.) That is, the sort of person who might pick Rust for its features might correlate with the sort of person who cares more about those properties in the first place. That doesn't mean they're experts who can execute the ideas flawlessly, or that someone slogging in C couldn't carefully built the same project. I do think it means they're more likely to prioritize safety (yes, it's not 100% safe; yes, you can write insecure code in Rust; don't "correct" me) as an inherent design goal than maybe someone cranking it out in assembler.