&#x27;Honestly I think your view of technological adoption is fairly naive -- I don&#x27;t see much content here other than &quot;everyone get behind Rust!&quot;.&#x27;<p>I think you may not have seen much content because you weren&#x27;t looking for it very hard; for one thing, you seem to have simply instantiated for me an instance of the fallacy I mentioned. People overestimate change in the short term, but underestimate it in the long term.<p>&quot;IMO the more realistic approach is a systems approach: make it so that badly written C code doesn&#x27;t completely hose your system.&quot;<p>We&#x27;ve been doing that for 40 years. Since it is already a sufficient problem that C can hose the process it is in, even perfect process isolation is not sufficient. Building all the protection code in C also has a track record of demonstrated failure. You&#x27;re basically proposing we continue doing the exact same things that are also the reason we&#x27;re having this conversation in the first place. If this plan worked, we would not even be here.<p>I&#x27;d also point out that if we&#x27;re talking track records, capabilities have failed pretty comprehensively to date.<p>&quot;We know (or should know) all this stuff.&quot;<p>And yet, here we are. Theory says this ought to work. Reality says it isn&#x27;t. Reality wins.<p>&quot;Another thing the Rust community should be working on is easy and efficient IPC with C programs. So you can rewrite a secure core in Rust and communicate with legacy C&#x2F;C++ running in an untrusted OS context.&quot;<p>More evidence that you &quot;didn&#x27;t see much content&quot; in my post because you weren&#x27;t looking for it is that I already said that.<p>Finally, I&#x27;m arguing the first derivative and you&#x27;re arguing the zeroth. I think it&#x27;s perfectly feasible that much more of the code written in 2035 will be in Rust than in C, and people will look at you funny if you insist on writing a new subsystem in C. If you think that&#x27;s unthinkable, well, that&#x27;s the long-term underestimating fallacy I was talking about. Since, as I already mentioned in my post, Mozilla is <i>already starting to do this</i> it&#x27;s hardly unthinkable that by 2035 everybody will be.<p>With respect, you clearly read what you pre-judged and expected to read in my post, not what I actually said. If you found that to be &quot;naive&quot;, well, I don&#x27;t think that comes from me.