[mcronce]

Not solving all security issues isn't the same as not solving security issues. I'd rather my financial data be handled by software written in something that solves many whole classes of vulnerabilities than something that solves none of them.

[carlmr]

Apart from the fact that it doesn't only solve a lot of security vulnerabilities, but also avoids a lot of bugs, by virtue of having a stricter type system and memory safety.

[nocombination]

Remember we are talking about putting it into the core OS and overall what will the impact be on the stability of said OS. What folks here tend to describe is userspace applications which languages like Go/Java/C#/Erlang/Etc... already solve. In fact, most banks probably already use safer languages for the bulk of the workloads and it works just fine.

I want to point out one more thing: Rust is not a simple language by any stretch. It's equal to in complexity to C++ (yet without decades of established "good practices"). It is much preferable to have an easier to understand core and move the complexity outward—for improved stability and robustness. The core OS by nature of what it does needs to access raw resources in an "unsafe" manner. Rust kernel code will be littered with unsafe blocks and unnecessary complexity.