Hello

(I meant to send this to the list. I did so immediately after realizing
I mistakenly replied directly, but it appears it hasn't gone through.
That's what I get for being hurried. Attempting again.)

On 3/21/26 8:08 AM, Marin Ivanov wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 13:49:43 -0400
> Steve Litt <slitt@???> wrote:
>
>> But if you mean that Rust is a bad language, I'd like to hear why you
>> think that. It's much safer than C, and its compiler messages are much
>> more educational than almost any other language.
>
> People often make the mistake calling a language (memory-)safe, instead
> of the compiler.

Memory safety *is* a property of the language, especially if you need
the language to run on bare-metal without a runtime.

> You may want to check Fil-C[1], which is a memory-safe
> C and C++ compiler. It has overhead though.

Unlike Rust, Fil-C requires recompiling every single library. It also
requires a runtime, making it unsuitable for bare-metal development.

And from what I heard, it has a race condition in its capability model
which will _not_ be addressed because it would add even more overhead.
https://gist.github.com/unixpickle/4eaae977d79c3b9eeda45d5baf52859f

Best regards
David