> The implication here being that Rust is adequate, I take it?
I think the implication here being that Rust is an improvement. Perhaps not even Rust is adequate, depending on one's needs, but it is at least a step in the right direction.
> Yes, C has no safety. If my code has a hole, it will be noone's fault but my own. And that's the way I like it
This is the way you and so many other C programmers "like it". As a result, buffer overflows, use after free bugs, and other completely understood reoccurring bugs continue to plague the CVE database in the form of new RCE vulnerabilities.
Maybe you're the promised child, the next Buddha, who will usher in a new age of secure C.
> I was troubleshooting some code today
Oh, you're a mere mortal like the rest of us.
Look, I get it, you don't want to give up the "power" of C for the improved memory safety of something else you don't yet understand. But you could really simplify your argument to: "I don't care much about safety, so C is fine." And, hey, you know, that's actually a legitimate argument.
I care about safety. I recognize I am mortal, so I have my code reviewed for mistakes. I recognize my reviewers are mortal, so I apply static analysis, unit tests, fuzz testing, and integration tests to catch the mistakes my reviewers won't. Even these are fallible, so I apply all the latest and greatest mitigation that I can - ASLR, stack cookies, W^X, the works.
If there's a hole, it will be the "fault" of me, my coworkers, the authors of the tools we use, and so many more. This is a step in the right direction - towards how just how I like it. Where one mortal may fall, perhaps a team of them shall succeed.
And yet it's still not enough.