You don't believe in slowly and iteratively improving a codebase over time? Should git stick with its weird mishmash of C and perl and shell scripts forever, for tradition's sake, performance and maintainability be damned?

> Having 0.1% of the code in a safe language will not change anything, it's only a bad security blanket.

Just because something does provide an immediate perfect solution does not mean it isn't not worth investigating and/or pursuing.

Also consider that bugs tend to be more prevalent in new code (e.g., [0]) as a result, you are likely to see more of a benefit from writing new code in a memory-safe language than raw line count proportions would indicate.

[0]: https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s...

Rewriting it all in rust with bug for bug compatibility and byte identical outputs won’t cost more than $100k in tokens, but I don’t think this is an answer you’re looking for

I don't understand your reasoning. Why should they quit git and Linux (and presumably all applications written in C) if they believe Rust is more secure than C?

I hope you don't use seatbelts in your car, as they won't help you against a fire.