@kaniini The most important feature of Rust isn't that it *can* do memory-safe stuff, but that it nearly *forces* you to do it. This is something that C++, for legacy/compatibility reasons, can never do - no matter how many safety features are added. Even unsafe blocks in Rust are very limited in what they'll let you do, and push you towards memory-safe implementations at every point.

It's that "safe by default unless you try really hard to make it unsafe" characteristic that's so valuable about Rust (and other safe-by-default languages), because *that* is ultimately what prevents memory-management-related bugs - almost all of which are genuine mistakes, not acts of malice.

(Also, this is from 2014, but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7587978 -- AFAIK at least some chunk of this remains unchanged, though I haven't checked recently.)