> and don’t think that the programmer more than the languages contribute to those problems

This sounds a lot like how I used to think about unit testing and type checking when I was younger and more naive. It also echoes the sentiments of countless craftspeople talking about safety protocols and features before they lost a body part.

Safety features can’t protect you from a bad programmer. But they can go a long way to protect you from the inevitable fallibility of a good programmer.

It's crazy how anti-Rust people think that eliminating 70% of your security bugs[1] by construction just by using a memory-safe language (not even necessarily Rust) is somehow a bad thing or not worth doing.

[1] - https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/memory-safet...

It's not about being completely bug free. Safe rust is going to be reasonably hardened against exploitable decoder bugs which can be converted into RCEs. A bug in safe rust is going to be a hell of a lot harder to turn into an exploit than a bug in bog standard C++.

> It’s crazy how people think using Rust will magically make your code bug and vulnerability free

It won't for all code, and not bug-free, but it absolutely does make it possible to write code parsing untrusted input all-but vulnerability free. It's not 100% foolproof but the track record of Rust parsing libraries is night-and-day better than C/C++ libraries in this domain. And they're often faster too.

Straw-man much?