This reminds me of a post I once read arguing that type-safe languages weren&#x27;t actually helpful, because they (generally) still let you write programs that could violate type safety. I thought that argument was silly, and I think yours is too. Yes, I&#x27;m quite confident that Rust isn&#x27;t a panacea, anymore than functional programming will be, or object oriented programming has been, or type safety is. The point is that each of those techniques helps you to avoid certain classes of bugs. And so far as I can tell, Rust genuinely does have features that make writing certain kinds of bugs much less likely. Yes, Rust doesn&#x27;t help you prevent every kind of bug. (Shocker!) But I don&#x27;t get the point of insisting that decreasing an attacker&#x27;s surface space isn&#x27;t worthwhile.