A lot of bug fixes/exploits are _CAUSED_ by the C+ core, but still... Tried & true vs new hotness?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)
I do get what you mean, but Rust has been baking for a decade, finally took off after 10 years of baking, and now that is been repeatedly tried and tested it is eating the world, as some developers suggested it could eventually do so. I however do think this shows a different problem:
If nobody writes unit tests, how do you write them when you port over projects to ensure your new language doesn't introduce regressions. All rewrites should be preceded by strong useful unit tests.
This is my personal belief on this anyway.
lol, you got me. Stupid old brain not calculating time correctly.
Partially is in fact true: Just because the Rust use a better type system (after ML) + better resource model (aka borrow checker), and if you are decently good, you eliminate, forever!, tons of problems.
It can't solve things that arise by complex interactions or just lack of port subtle details like in parsing poor inputs (like html) but is true that changing the language in fact solve tons of things.
*so long as you dont use unsafe rust
**unsafe rust required for systems programming
***rust is a systems language
****does changing a default actually solve anything?
It seems like Rust is now just the default in all manner of critical systems.
rg, fzf, and several others that I can't think have proven to me that rust is the direction going forward.
It’s not so much about the language as it is about the hindsight/developer/project