It's true that Rust would probably not exist today if it didn't focus on lifetimes but I think a lot of Rust programmers now either don't care or literally don't know anything about memory management e.g. Every rust programmer that I've met (my age at least) has taken to rust because they like it as a language and are often trying to avoid learning C++ (note that is completely different from looking for a language after having learnt C++).
Rust as a midpoint between Haskell and C, so really C with a nicer type system, combined with momentum/meme status is more important today than it's memory safety story. Memory safety just isn't the buzzword that it was even in 2019 let alone 2015.
> And you can probably bang out one yourself if you want.
I've written my own dataflow analysis code, aimed at lifetime checking, too, but that's not really the point is it?
Rust is nothing like C. It's not even a midway point between C and Haskell.
Rust is C++ with stronger typing and a better memory management model. Comparisons between Rust and C aren't really accurate because Rust is the modern stainless steel kitchen sink that C++ can't be. Without its lovely ADTs and borrow checker it's just C++ with a better package management story. Nothing wrong with that. It won't replace C.
C is crap, but C is clearly the more fundamental point in the embedding space here so I went with it over C++ — "professional" C++ has its own idioms/Alexandrescu-isms that barely exist in any other language.
Rust as a midpoint between Haskell and C, so really C with a nicer type system, combined with momentum/meme status is more important today than it's memory safety story. Memory safety just isn't the buzzword that it was even in 2019 let alone 2015.
> And you can probably bang out one yourself if you want.
I've written my own dataflow analysis code, aimed at lifetime checking, too, but that's not really the point is it?