>It's not a blaming game. Code written in C has issues because C has issues, but are you then saying that Rust has no issues? Will never have any issues? What's the bar here?
Rust eliminates an entire class of issues that constitute 70% of C bugs (and largely the most critical bugs at that) by design. Nobody's saying Rust has no issues and never will, but they are saying that this is an objective improvement.
> Nobody's saying Rust has no issues and never will
Ok, so we agree that Rust must have some issues, some of them undiscovered yet. What suggests that Rust won't introduce issues that will be larger than the 70% of issues that it solves with C? Because to me, it just sounds like we can't know so we're being hopeful that we don't run into that situation.
Seatbelts have issues. Some of them undiscovered yet. What suggests that Seatbelts won't introduce issues that will be larger than the 70% of issues that it solves with crashes? Because to me, it just sounds like we can't know so we're being hopeful that we don't run into that situation.
What a ridiculous way to make an argument. Even a silly seatbelt had to wait for about 10 years after being released before it was required to be in cars. Maybe write a few other kernels in Rust before using it in billions of devices? But no, shoot straight for Linux because "C bad, Rust good".
Rust eliminates an entire class of issues that constitute 70% of C bugs (and largely the most critical bugs at that) by design. Nobody's saying Rust has no issues and never will, but they are saying that this is an objective improvement.