[npalli]

Rust is the future of systems programming and will always be for the foreseeable future. The memory issue will mostly be addressed as needed, see from John Carmack yesterday[1], the C++ ecosystem advantage (a broad sense of how problems whether DS, Storage, OS, Networking, etc. have been solved) will be very hard to overcome for newer programming languages. I think it is ironic how modern C++ folks just keep chugging along releasing products while Rust folks are generally haranguing everyone about "memory safety" and generally leaving half finished projects (turns out writing Rust code is more fun than reading someone else, who would have guessed).

[1] https://x.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1935353905149341968

[wgjordan]

> The memory issue will mostly be addressed as needed

I have no allegiance to either lang ecosystem, but I think it's an overly optimistic take to consider memory safety a solved problem from a tweet about fil-c, especially considering "the performance cost is not negligible" (about 2x according to a quick search?)

[npalli]

Performance drop of 2x for memory safety critical sections vs Rust rewrite taking years/decades, not even a contest. Now, if that drop was 10x maybe, but at 2x it is no brainer to continue with C++. I'm not certain Fil-C totally works in all cases, but it is an example of how the ecosystem will evolve to solve this issue and not migrate to Rust.

[hexaga]

What would you consider to be a non memory safety critical section? I tried to answer this and ended up in a chain of 'but wait, actually memory issues here would be similarly bad...', mainly because UB and friends tend to propagate and make local problems very non-local.

[bobmcnamara]

I/O safety critical sections.