[msla]

> I skimmed it, but I think what the author is getting at is that rust demands rigour.

C demands rigor, too, but we're not talking about C because C compilers don't hold your hand and show you where your rigor slipped. Which is a sign C demands more rigor than Rust, isn't it? It's a problem with the author's argument: It's better to say that both C and Rust demand rigor, because they both compile to low-overhead executables (lower-overhead than C++, certainly), but Rust has more handrails and warning signs than C, so it's less dangerous.