There's a lot to comment on that post about strange conclusions. Yes, C has an ISO standard. It took more than 15 years from the conception of the language. Sa

There's a lot to comment on that post about strange conclusions. Yes, C has an ISO standard. It took more than 15 years from the conception of the language. Same with C++. Before that, there didn't even exist a normative compiler. And if you want a certified C or C++ compiler, you have to pay a lot, or use the "it is wildly used with a well-known set of bugs". Either way, there's a huge load of constructs that are Undefined Behavior which you need to know about and avoid. The discussion about the borrow checker being hard to understand and work around, only highlights a belief that is different from what you need to do in C or C++ anyway - but without help from the compiler. And cost? Heck, Visual Studio Pro cost twice that of Ferrocene. The Enterprise version starts at 10x the price - and those aren't certified. Then there's the discussion about proving to the compiler that the code is correct - while at the same time dismissing proof using formal verification, that in turn is an entire language and alphabet of symbols that doesn't even exist on a keyboard. Yes, the Rust syntax could have been easier to read, to that I agree. And Rust is no silver bullet. But in general, the article could benefit from a review.