To my mind Rust is neither a panacea nor a mere mitigation strategy. It (or another language like it) is a necessary condition for anything like generally safe (not perfect) computing.
Please don't jump to the conclusion that someone who thinks that Rust isn't just one more mitigation strategy is an addled fanboi who thinks it's a total panacea and snake oil. That is NOT what they're saying. They are saying it's necessary for robust computing and I think they're right about that.
I'm quite tired of being instantly and vehemently misunderstood on this point so often, personally. So many people seem eager to put not just words but whole chapters in my mouth, even at the cost of using rather rotten logic to accomplish that. Those of us with considerable respect for Rust DO indeed understand that a necessary condition for genuinely safer computing is not a sufficient condition - but I do sometimes wonder if those who have less interest in Rust and sneer at anything resembling enthusiasm for it, have recognized this distinction, or have gotten that far in their thinking.
The sheer complexity of many of the systems we're building now really does make them necessary; so many programmers not just building but maintaining such complex systems over such long periods of time, now; the only way to be safe is to be safe.
There was a time when good drivers argued that seatbelts weren't strictly necessary if you knew what you were doing in a car, so there shouldn't be laws insisting on them.
So if by "strictly", you mean logically possible and sometimes within human ability; yeahbut we now just have to be more practical.
No doubt I should have narrowed the scope of the first sentence of my first post; but I'll leave it for now.
Not strictly necessary, but as the vast legions of merely adequate programmers have demonstrated they are practically necessary. They're necessary for scaling the number of programmers up.
Please don't jump to the conclusion that someone who thinks that Rust isn't just one more mitigation strategy is an addled fanboi who thinks it's a total panacea and snake oil. That is NOT what they're saying. They are saying it's necessary for robust computing and I think they're right about that.
I'm quite tired of being instantly and vehemently misunderstood on this point so often, personally. So many people seem eager to put not just words but whole chapters in my mouth, even at the cost of using rather rotten logic to accomplish that. Those of us with considerable respect for Rust DO indeed understand that a necessary condition for genuinely safer computing is not a sufficient condition - but I do sometimes wonder if those who have less interest in Rust and sneer at anything resembling enthusiasm for it, have recognized this distinction, or have gotten that far in their thinking.