[uecker]

C and C++ don't have such subset defined as part of their standard. Left to users means left to additional tools, which do exist. Rust only has memory safety by default, this is a small part of the problem and it is not clear to me that having this helps with functional safety. (Although I agree that it helps elsewhere).

[AlotOfReading]

I'd be happy to explain at length why the existing tools and standards are insufficient if you want. It'd be easier to have that discussion over another medium than HN comment chain though.

[simonask]

If you think a strong and convenient type system helps with functional safety, then Rust helps with functional safety. This is also generally the experience in the industry.

[uecker]

I am not convinced a strong type system helps with functional safety and I am not even deeply impressed by Rust's type system. The scientific literature does even seem even that clear about whether a strong type system substantially reduces software defects in general. I believe in proofs though. I generally believe complexity is bad and both C++ and Rust are too complex for my taste. I also think Rust has severe supply chain issues.