I do assume any post with "written in rust" does better on hacker news.
Point is, it's still an improvement. I am regularly amazed as to why that factually correct and (more and more) time-proven argument is always skipped when criticizing Rust.
Point is, many don't do it. And they don't tell anyone. And they deploy important software. And then we get unpleasantly surprised years (or decades) later.
Same argument as with C++: proponents say that the modern C++ is almost like Rust which is cool and I am happy for them, but there are literal hundreds of millions of C++ coding lines out there that will never get upgraded. Having a cop-out like "yeah but the modern version is better" doesn't help legacy code.
Rust on the other hand is super strict for a long time now. They did the right thing.
The benefit is that unsafe passages of Rust are rarer and should be safely abstracted from APIs for use by Safe Rust. Mellisearch seems to often (but not always) provide safety rationales for unsafe code, explaining why whatever is done is OK. I don't understand this domain in enough detail to comment on the quality of the rationales.
I prefer the number of guarantees / invariants that's above zero.
At the same time assuming you'll never get a memory issue is over the top.
Personally though -- and in my work -- I'll take any improvement that I can. I am sick of reading about yet another important piece of software having yet another memory safety zero day pwnage bug.
