I&#x27;m not so sure about the attitude.<p>&gt; After reading about the newest glibc vulnerability, I have decided to see how much effort there is in rewriting parts of glibc in a safe language.<p>If I were a C programmer, especially if I were a C programmer who worked on glibc, I might feel a little bit insulted that remark. Safety is a complicated concept, and calling Rust &quot;safe&quot; and C &quot;unsafe&quot; oversimplifies things, <i>especially</i> if your Rust code includes unsafe blocks. See also <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tedunangst.com&#x2F;flak&#x2F;post&#x2F;heartbleed-in-rust" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tedunangst.com&#x2F;flak&#x2F;post&#x2F;heartbleed-in-rust</a>.<p>I don&#x27;t think we have anything to lose by being as diplomatic as possible with these sorts of things. We can acknowledge that Rust&#x27;s safety is a work in progress, and that we&#x27;re still learning about the drawbacks.