I am super happy with most features, but demand is demand and people demand runtimes. As a chimera it perfectly represents the modern world.

Is it just because it makes async possible?

I meant that it's over-reach to say it's completely trustworthy just bc it's written in a GC/borrow checked language.

Clearly you can only do worse in Rust than you'd have with perfect C. But what's that?

The question is: what is the expected loss (time, bugs, exploits that lead to crashes or injury or death or financial catastrophe) with Rust vs other languages.

Unfortunately that's not the conversation we have. We instead have absolutism re managed memory, which does account for about half of known security flaws that have been discovered and patched. Removing half of bugs in one fell swoop sounds amazing.

It's not that we can't remove those bugs other ways. Maybe modern c++ can cut bugs in half at compile time too. But Rust seems nicer to play with and doesn't require much more than what it has out of the box. Also it's shiny and new.

Given that Rust is making its way into platforms that Cpp struggled into, it's potentially moot. I sincerely doubt Linux will accept Cpp, but we're on the cusp of Rust in Linux.