[rust_is_dead]

I have a word in mind, but before that I would ask: what are some safety-critical systems written in Rust? If there are any, how big a role does Rust play in their safety properties? Is it much different from any other programming language?

I can already hear faint exclamations about the language's age, but are Rust programmers justified in putting forward claims about safety? Or do they shift to using the word in the sense of "fewer bugs in this particular class" (and nevermind any other effects the language may have on development).

Even if we take such a narrow and distorting view of "safety", we can look at, say, "The Power of Ten" and ask how does Rust use fare with each rule, and is it any more advantageous than other languages in use by safety-critical systems.

[greenhearth]

I don't think anyone ever said it was completely safe. This is a pre-conception on the part of the critics. Every Rust resource I looked at stated that the toolset exists to support inherent safety, but there is still a contract with the programmer that requires them to know what they are doing.

[rust_is_dead]

Rust is "safe" and other languages are "unsafe". Haskell is "pure" while other language are "impure". Some macro systems are "hygienic" while others are "dirty". It is not an accident that the humpty dumpties (language designers) chose to use these particular terms for their semantic distinctions. It's useful for propaganda. The mind encounters a colloquial term and equivocates. This happens in both the critics and the evangelizers. Inferences drawn are then often unjustified.

[greenhearth]

Agreed, it does appear to be heavily sponsored and marketed. And you are correct that these pre-conceptions affect advocates as well! But I think the push for wide-scale acceptance is not unreasonable. If it is completely necessary I suppose only will be known sometime in the future.

[allisdust]

I'm curious what caused you to be so annoyed with the language that you had to create a user name out of it :)