The idea that memory safety is a binary choice between what Rust provides and anything less than that has absolutely no grounding in either empirical or theoret

The idea that memory safety is a binary choice between what Rust provides and anything less than that has absolutely no grounding in either empirical or theoretical results. For example, it is true that there are good empirical reports that some high percentage (~70%) of security issues in C programs are due to memory safety, but most of those are due to lack of spatial safety, and Zig offers the same level of spatial memory safety as Rust. But in short, you get a language that's far safer than C and far simpler than Rust, which appeals to some just as Rust appeals to some (and frankly, both appeal to far fewer people than what's necessary to achieve even a medium level of success).