> If you were right, then people should not be using Rust or C/C++. They should be using SPARK/Ada. Not all code needs that level of assurance. But almost all

> If you were right, then people should not be using Rust or C/C++. They should be using SPARK/Ada. Not all code needs that level of assurance. But almost all code can benefit from better memory safety than C or C++ can reliably provide. Re what people "should" be using, that's why I chose my words carefully and wrote, "Rust is the first language for a long time with a chance at improving this situation." Part of the chance I'm referring to is the widespread industry interest. Despite the reaction of curmudgeons on HN, all the hype around Rust is a good thing for wider adoption. We're always going to have people resistant to change. They're always going to use any excuse to complain, including "too much hype!" It's meaningless noise.