It's safer, in theory, to just do it in Rust first, but it is also important to consider the amount of time it actually takes to implement either.
Why is this garnering downvotes...?
That said,
> Half of those are classes of bugs that would probably still exist with the usage of Rust, that is, they're simply a diversion from what you expected and what actually happens that the borrow checker can't save you from.
It's unclear what you're referring to. The linked article is talking about vulnerabilities in QEMU drivers, which are almost exclusively memory safety issues from my own experience and memory. The post you're replying to is just about tools and techniques for avoiding them.
> but it is also important to consider the amount of time it actually takes to implement either.
No one has said otherwise and the article even explicitly addresses this.
So I find your point really unclear.
What do you mean by this? The article might reference it (I don't see any reference to this), but if it does it doesn't actually explore what factors would influence costs and their magnitude.
That's what I'm looking for.
The article explicitly addresses that it's not so simple to just rewrite a codebase:
> Moving a large codebase to a new programming language is extremely difficult. If people want to convert QEMU to Rust that would be great, but I personally don't have the appetite to do it because I think the integration will be messy, result in a lot of duplication, and there is too much un(der)maintained code that is hard to convert.
The number of new bugs introduced in a migration would be enormous. It's not just "translating" the C into Rust-- you ideally need to write "idiomatic" Rust.
Rust is a fantastic language but what I despise about its community is how they seem to think every C/C++ codebase should be rewritten in Rust. Either it's a monumental effort or it would decrease the developer base in many cases. In the case of C++ template libraries then it's in some cases even impossible to replicate functionality.
Rust has procedural macros that can replicate anything C++ templates can do, often more cleanly. And C/C++ are hardly immune from logical bugs.
This is an entirely false statement. Wishful thinking makes a poor substitute for knowledge. Promoting wishful thinking against facts does all readers a disservice.