> And this goes well beyond Rust and "mere" memory safety: this extends to every kind of taking things slow and being careful in your coding rather than just throwing something together and later finding out you've made a serious error.
It's a good reason to not collect/store information in the first place. If your startup depends on the collection of your user's PII, then I'd seriously question if there's a real purpose to your startup. IF your startup 100% does require the use of PII, then yes, slow the fuck down, and do it right.
If you're some other startup that doesn't actually need PII, but realize it is a fast way to make money, then you should really soul search to ask if you're as amoral as you look to others and if you're okay with that. If not, make a better product that doesn't mean selling your soul to make a buck.
That matters because that's the kind of "safety" we're talking about when we discuss externalities for end-users --- not servers that need extra monitoring because they might crash.
Java is more left-pad resistant than Typescript, granted.
Idiomatic Rust code is just as cavalier regarding NPEs as Java or Python code. Because the language starts to look really gross when you make your code panic-safe. So you have an `expect` here, an `unwrap` there, and now you're going to have the exact same runtime issues as the more expressive managed languages. No Rust programmer thinks their `expect` will panic, just like no Java programmer expects something will be null. Rust does not force you to "exhaustively match".
This is a problem in general, but it's not a good reason to use Rust in a startup, it's a good reason to use Java or C# or TypeScript or another well-worn high-level language with static typing.
Rust's niche is solving a set of security problems that most high-level languages don't have. Choosing it for a startup only really improves your security if the other language you're considering is C or C++.