It is entirely unclear to me what point you are trying to make. Is your mundane solution to just add more sanitization and analysis to C and C++? If so, that

It is entirely unclear to me what point you are trying to make. Is your mundane solution to just add more sanitization and analysis to C and C++? If so, that's great, more safety in any language is fantastic. My issue with that is that it is an optional addition to the language rather than the default behavior. The point I am making is that safe Rust _by default_ straight up disallows compiling code that has the potential for the vast majority of memory safety issues. Code with those issues is just a plain invalid program, and will not compile. If you want to bypass those protections, you need to explicitly opt-in with the unsafe keyword. C or C++ code with the same issues is perfectly valid, will compile and run, but it has the potential to be incorrect. You can (and should!) bolt on tools to fix that, but the issue is that the language allows that behavior by default. Until these tools are the defaults, the problem is only partially solved - you have to opt-in to a large chunk of safety features, and even if you do, you get fewer of them to boot. I'm not saying you should use Rust by any means. If you like C++, continue using it. But the fact here is that Rust solves a bunch of problems here and now today that C and C++ cannot, so it is baffling to me that people have such a visceral negative reaction to it.