If the library were written in modern C++, then it also wouldn't be a problem. It would have given you a std::unique_ptr, ownership would have been clear, and deletion would have been handled automatically.

Yes, and Rust doesn't protect you from memory leaks, BTW, although it does make them less likely. The overall value of a language can only be evaluated after years and many projects. My personal favorite to replace C/C++ is, by far, Zig, but I can't claim that it's the one to beat because it's years away from proving its worth, as are Nim, Rust, and, well, Bosque, I guess. Fashion forums like HN can pass judgment quickly -- that's what fashion forums are for, and why they're good entertainment but not to be taken too seriously -- but the real world of the software industry takes much, much longer, and has a far higher bar for evidence.

Let me clarify, in this actual case it would have. In Rust, memory that gets allotted in a function are freed when they go out of scope. So function returns -> stuff gets freed unless explicitly telling compiler not to.

I haven't seen Zig and I'll check it out. But some of the "fanfare" is necessary to get people involved and things built. Many other langs and projects that are technically worthwhile never get any of it and just languish.

I don't have a problem with the fanfare, but let's not drink our own kool-aid, yeah?

If there's a new language that wants to try its luck, it still only needs to beat the incumbent, not the rest of the wannabes (one or some of which may well one day be the incumbent, but none are anywhere near that yet).

Indeed, at the end of the day there are certain domains where they are unavoidable, and regardless of countless rants from our side, those are the tools that get picked when one of said domains needs to be addressed.

Given your line of work, why not Java itself, on an hypothetical future where Valhalla is done, and AOT is a standard feature in equal footing with JIT capabilities/performance?

Maybe, but I'm allowed to like more than one language, no? :)

But seriously, I don't think AOT can ever match a JIT on peak performance without reducing the abstraction level and significantly increasing programmer burden, and much of Java's design is around "we automatically turn RAM into speed." It's a great value proposition for huge swathes of the software industry, but I don't think it's necessarily the best strategy for niches that require performance and are RAM-constrained.

I like Java and I like low-level programming even though it requires more effort regardless of language.

Sure, just curious. :)

Currently I am on a mix of .NET (C# F#) alongside C++.

I agree with the performance part, that is why the best is to be able to have both around, AOT + JIT.