linuxmemes

This, to me, seems like the standardization vs optimization argument. So much of the tech world could be optimized like crazy, but the more complex it gets, the hard it is to communicate with others and keep things consistent. This complexity actually hinders production overall. Standardization, even if it’s not the most optimized, allows us to create vastly more complex and reliable systems because we can ensure we are all on the same page. Even if that standardization isn’t the best way to do it.

Standardization is the reason why systems collapse or are more prone to attacks. Just think about a monoculture vs an organic mixed culture. Also, the impact on standardized systems is much bigger, because it affects the entire system. But on the other hand, yes, it requires more time and people. When reading comments from Rust people, I have always the impression that in the best case everything is replaced with Rust code. If this is indeed their intention, I disagree.

I mean, if you want to talk about absolute control over your code, why don’t you write in assembly? Are all programming languages not virtually assembly with training wheels?

Perhaps difficulty to learn, apply, and make changes? Also no interest, trigger and coolness among people? Assembly are considered the old nerds aka the hated boomers, while Rust people are sometimes the hipsters, the new generation. I do not like this attitude of exclusion. BTW, if you want to try out an OS written in assembly look at Kolibri OS.

Writing in code that is not memory safe is going to mean you are substantially more likely to have mistakes that lead both to user annoyance and straight up security vulnerabilities.

Depends on your skills.

Having applications written in a memory safe languages, especially when worked on by large swaths of people, is absolutely the best route.

I am sorry but I am unable to mix "safe language", "large swaths of people", and "best route" somehow in my brain. I just see "tilt, tilt, tilt", because it does not make sense to me as there are no connections between all three points.

It provides a secure standard way to write memory safe code. This will reduce security vulnerabilities, decrease program crashes, and allow for more efficient developers.

The secure I put in question mark (aka time will show) and are you serious about efficient developers? In case you mean producing a larger program faster, yes, I agree. Memory safer? Very likely (although you can write safe programs in C as well). But more efficient in terms of more competent? I would not say this.

Changing a bike tire is something for a single person, maybe two at most. Writing code is often a team effort. And the more people that are involved, the more likely mistakes are going to happen.

Does not change my intention: either you know the in and outs, or you are a slave of others - in the case of Rust, the slave of the compiler.

People absolutely can still learn the complexities, and still choose to use Rust because honestly, it’s the smart thing to do.

Haven't said anything against, but the smart thing to do is up to the personal choice, not because there is a loud community of followers.

And it doesn’t need to be rust. Any memory safe language would accomplish the same goal.

This is the point I would underline. It is not only Rust, but there are many languages out there worth regards and time, even for low level and systems.