Not only that, but most people in this thread are STILL missing the multiple elephants in the room.<p>First, Rust allows unsafe code in the core language [not simply through FFI as in other safe languages]. So there&#x27;s a gaping hole that we know <i>will</i> be abused (performance! performance!) right there. Even if we grant
that this is not the case, here is the deal breaker:<p>The Rust approach to security depends on an ecosystem that follows the same approach. To think that this is more than an utopic dream is to enter cuckoo-land in my opinion. So we digress back to the castles-built-on-top-of-sand.<p>There&#x27;s millions of lines of code written in unsafe languages plus all mainstream operating systems. The Rust approach will never work in this sort of environment.<p>An approach that <i>might</i> work however is unikernels and using a language that promotes design with failures in mind [and makes it extremely easy to rapidly rearchitect&#x2F;rebuild&#x2F;redeploy]. Erlang is the best example in my view, but there could be more.<p>Alas, Rust is not really suitable for this either due to its static nature.