In Defense of C++

> Just using Rust will not magically make your application safe; it will just make it a lot harder to have memory leaks or safety issues.

You know, not sure I even agree with the memory leaks part. If you define a memory leak very narrowly as forgetting to free a pointer, this is correct. But in my experience working with many languages including C/C++, forgotten pointers are almost never the problem. You're gonna be dealing with issues involving "peaky" memory usage e.g. erroneously persistent references to objects or bursty memory allocation patterns. And these occur in all languages.

Nice thing about Rust is not that you cannot write such code, it is you know exactly where you used peaky memory or re-interpreted something as a unsigned integer or replaced your program stack with something else. All of such cases require unsafe blocks in Rust. It is a screaming indicator "here be dragons". It is the do not press this red button unless you intend to.

In C and C++ no such thing exists. It is walking in a minefield. It is worse with C++ because they piled so much stuff, nobody knows on the top of their head how a variable is initialized. The initialization rules are insane: https://accu.org/journals/overload/25/139/brand_2379/

So if you are doing peaky memory stuff with complex partially self-initializing code in C++, there are so many ways of blowing yourself and your entire team up without knowing which bit of code you committed years ago caused it.

> All of such cases require unsafe blocks in Rust.

It's true that Rust makes it much harder to leak memory compared to C and even C++, especially when writing idiomatic Rust -- if nothing else, simply because Rust forces the programmer to think more deeply about memory ownership.

But it's simply not the case that leaking memory in Rust requires unsafe blocks. There's a section in the Rust book explaining this in detail[1] ("memory leaks are memory safe in Rust").

[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch15-06-reference-cycles.html