But I’d struggle to match your claim along the lines of, “games and DAW developers would be more productive with a memory-safe language because they wouldn’t have to debug memory safety bugs”.
Memory safety in Rust might be “zero-cost” but it isn’t free.
Languages like Zig accept that developers spend time on things outside of memory bugs, seek to improve their productivity and quality of life in those areas, and trust that devs will pick tools that reduce their largest pain points, be that Zig or Rust or Odin.
The best response we as an industry can have to this is to say, “wow, I’m glad so many hard-working people feel motivated to bring some of those bars down on the Ways Software Sucks Chart, let’s give them our money and our support!”
To me that’s healthier than assuming that everyone’s Suck Chart looks the same, tapping the memory safety bar over on the right and saying, “sheesh, anyone using a language that doesn’t fix this bar just doesn’t realise how productive they could be!”.
It also detracts from celebrating the engineering achievement here. Two people deleted their creaking C++ compiler by writing a custom interpreter in two weeks so their language can be bootstrapped using only system-installed tools. It is uncharitable to insinuate that they needn’t have bothered because if you really care about productivity you wouldn’t use languages like their one anyway.
