By "public marketing effort" do you mean "people talking about Rust"?
Personally, I interpret the focus on memory safety as a response to "memory issues aren't a big deal" or "memory issues only come from incompetence" viewpoints.
Re:Ada: a C Developer's Perspective
by fghvbnvbnfe on Thursday April 27, 2017 @08:25PM
(#14215982)
Again here the word "safety" starts to get rather muddy. What Rust calls safe is not what Ada calls safe. I'd rather be specific about what we're talking about.
Memory safety is not, itself, program correctness. It's just one way programs can go wrong.
Rust is a very nice language with many useful and interesting features which may exist because of the developers' focus on safety but can very much be marketed without calling out safety all the time, and especially without the hints, suggestion, and innuendo that using a language without Rust's safety model is somehow dirty, dangerous, or worse irresponsible or unethical.