> The real answer should have been a new language that has memory safety without all the extra conceptual changes and orthogonal subsystems that Rust brings. S

> The real answer should have been a new language that has memory safety without all the extra conceptual changes and orthogonal subsystems that Rust brings. So what you're saying here is that you don't understand that Rust's rules around memory ownership, aliasing, and mutability are what allow the language to provide deterministic compile time memory safety without runtime cost. If you figure out another way to guarantee memory safety at compile time with zero runtime overhead, you should write a paper and start another language around it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Hardware_Enhanced_RISC_Instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Hardware_Enhanced_R... exists, and is an exciting, laudable effort, I think. But requires hardware support as well as language modifications.