[steveklabnik]

They're basically making an argument of "talking about the programming language involved is missing the forest for the trees." Bugs are inevitable, regardless of language, and so the real culprit here is a lack of QA/validation before deploy.

Which like, sure, it's a good point in general, but it's also worth discussing if certain technologies would make your QA team's lives easier. Both "would this tool catch this bug" and "are there structural problems that led to a bug slipping through into production" are valid questions.

In my mind, the author is making the same mistake he accuses others of making, just from the opposite direction.

[kaycey2022]

QA aren't some magic wizards that can catch all bugs. They might never hit the memory corruption scenarios that Rust optimizes for. I think you need everything - a good high level language, experienced devs who know that domain, and good practises surrounding each release. There is no good reason for a billion dollar corp to skimp on these.