gaol

e both totally reasonable and indeed are things that Rust core team acknowledge (although the first is becoming less and less true, in "surprising" places, as more things are internet connected). Additionally, the latter is a "defense in depth" strategy that the Rust community is keen on (e.g. https://github.com/servo/gaol): it is understood that code can have bugs, inside unsafe code or not, and so limiting the interaction with things outside the program is always good. However, neither of these facts support, for instance, an expert being able write a memory-safe regex library in C++ in a reasonable time (e.g. how long it took for Rust's regex library to be written by a single Rust expert), nor do they say anything about code that does have strict requirements about security or correctness (latent memory safety bug might not be exploited, but it can still lead to weird crashes and data corruption). > Given all of that, I have been interested in Rust for reasons having nothing to do with safety. You have some great features, and I think you should advertise those. If you fixed the pain points in Rust instead of emphasizing the shortcomings in C++, I think you could win a lot more converts (and a lot of new developers who could grow your ecosystem outside of web clients and services). This was extensively discussed a few weeks ago, e.g. http://words.steveklabnik.com/rust-is-more-than-safety https://thefeedbackloop.xyz/safety-is-rusts-fireflower/ http://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/247406.html http://words.steveklabnik.com/fire-mario-not-fire-flowers . And, you might be interested to know that the 2017 roadmap https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/02/06/roadmap.html includes many things like fixing pain points, and features for both web and non-web developers.