&quot;I really hate all the &quot;let&#x27;s port everything to &lt;fancy new language&gt;&quot; whenever a security issue comes out.&quot;<p>That&#x27;s a nice oversimplification, even disinformation. More like ALGOL60-68 was designed with prevention of common issues in mind. It didn&#x27;t run on PDP-11, so they ported &amp; modded BCPL into C to write UNIX. All kinds of stuff written in that language with tons of flaws that were mostly the same and preventable since ALGOL&#x27;s. Many calls to use alternatives (eg Wirth&#x27;s, Ada) that prevented them by default with switches to turn each off only when necessary. One was a clever C variant called Cyclone with pointer and memory management tricks to knock out errors. Inspired by it and some others, Mozilla team created Rust to achieve similar safety&#x2F;security objectives that existed since 1960&#x27;s for ALGOL.<p>So, it&#x27;s not a fad or gimmick. It&#x27;s recognizing certain things regularly trip up system programmers. The basic techniques to stopping it were deployed and field-proven far back as 1961 in mainframes. Many others since, like those in Rust. The author, rather than your assertion, is simply applying that wisdom to reduce flaws instead of ignoring it. Rust and DOOM were probably chosen because they were more fun for author than rewriting djbdns, OpenSSH or Nginx in Ada2012&#x2F;SPARK2014 w&#x2F; full, prover use. Entirely understandable even if not ideal.