I'm saying fix them. I'm also saying, I don't think the language is the appropriate level to do this at.

You can see the clear conflict in the mentality of these new languages. "Fast and, somehow, safe!" It's missing the forest for the trees, much like your retort.

> Fix them.

People are. Like on Android.

> In Android 13, about 21% of all new native code (C/C++/Rust) is in Rust. There are approximately 1.5 million total lines of Rust code in AOSP across new functionality and components such as Keystore2, the new Ultra-wideband (UWB) stack, DNS-over-HTTP3, Android’s Virtualization framework (AVF), and various other components and their open source dependencies. These are low-level components that require a systems language which otherwise would have been implemented in C++.

> To date, there have been zero memory safety vulnerabilities discovered in Android’s Rust code.

> We don’t expect that number to stay zero forever, but given the volume of new Rust code across two Android releases, and the security-sensitive components where it’s being used, it’s a significant result. It demonstrates that Rust is fulfilling its intended purpose of preventing Android’s most common source of vulnerabilities. Historical vulnerability density is greater than 1/kLOC (1 vulnerability per thousand lines of code) in many of Android’s C/C++ components (e.g. media, Bluetooth, NFC, etc). Based on this historical vulnerability density, it’s likely that using Rust has already prevented hundreds of vulnerabilities from reaching production.

Source: Memory Safe Languages in Android 13 https://security.googleblog.com/2022/12/memory-safe-language...

But sure, keep telling yourself that it’s possible to write C++ code of this quality by being more careful or using some magical sanitizer or by hiring better developers or whatever.

"And the reality is that there are no absolute guarantees. Ever. The "Rust is safe" is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety. Never has been. Anybody who believes that should probably re-take their kindergarten year, and stop believing in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus."

Linus Torvalds - 2022

https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/19/1105

I didn't claim that Rust provides absolute guarantees. I don't know anyone who has claimed that. The only place I've heard that being claimed is people saying it's commonly claimed so by Rust advocates.

Even in my comment I quoted a passage that said "we don’t expect that number to stay zero forever". This is important. Although it has been successful so far, there will be bugs in it, even the odd memory safety bug.

That's still progress! Fewer bugs than before is progress, (mostly) eliminating a class of bugs is progress. I only addressed a person who was saying "there will still be some bugs, so there's no point tackling this at a language level". They're unable to grasp the idea of progress.