>>84591534>rust makes neither laziness nor inexperience impossible
why is the metric "it must be 100% effective or it's a complete waste of time"? how is reducing or preventing very common mistakes, even if not by 100%, a failed endevour?
and I don't care what language or frameworks you use, you can write shit code with it>Thus, rust offers no real gain in security.
it literally does. if you try to do an out of bounds write, it fails and panics, it doesn't just allow the write and then maybe it will crash, or get exploited
rust also makes it much harder to introduce common memory related defects, because it has strict lifetime and mutability checks, if your code violates one of these it will straight up fail to compile. that alone can greatly cut down on the likelihood of having these defects in the first place