> My point is against rewrites of critical software for the point of rewriting it insert my favorite language. In this specific case we are talking about the m

> My point is against rewrites of critical software for the point of rewriting it insert my favorite language. In this specific case we are talking about the maintainer adding a new language into the existing codebase. I think refactoring parts of the software in the new language is what you call "rewrite" here, correct? So what improvements does it bring? You actually answered it yourself: > it's not just a matter of pretty types and memory safety So indeed, stricter/stronger type system and additional automatic compile time and runtime checks are a major improvement. > platform As already mentioned in this thread: neither of the platforms lacking Rust were supported officially anyways. > language stability Rust is extremely stable and backwards compatible - 1.0 code still compiles without any issues on 1.90 and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. > skill and expertise of the authors The same developers continuing to contribute and newcoming developers have more checks in place to prevent bugs. > development speed I guess you imply here that developing in C++ is faster. It's in fact not if your aim is to produce correct software. There are so many more things to keep in mind and take care of with C++, you have fewer automatic checks being done by the compiler and the type system. About Zig: it's a nice language and much more comfortable to use than C/C++ IMO, but compared to Rust it lacks in strictness and safety, so added benefits are smaller and fewer if you put away subjective preferences.