I find it hilarious that this comment is being downvoted.

Exactly what is the controversial take here?

> I don’t think brushing the bad parts off with “most of the code was really good!” is a fair way to look at this.

Nope. this is fine.

> Cloudflare crashed a chunk of the internet with a rust app a month or so ago, deploying a bad config file iirc.

Maybe this?

> Rust isn’t a panacea, it’s a programming language. It’s ok that it’s flawed, all languages are.

Nope, this is fine too.

I didn't downvote, but I feel the last two points show a lack of nuance. It's saying "Rust doesn't prevent 100% of the bugs, like all other programming languages", while failing to acknowledge that if a programming language prevents entire classes of bugs, it's a very significant improvement.

Because the bugs were caused by programmer error, not anything inherent to rust. It was more notable due to cloudflare being a critical dependency for half the internet, but that particular issue could've happened in any language.

This kind of melodramatic reaction to rust code is fatiguing, honestly. Rust does not bill itself as some programming panacea or as a bug free language, and neither do any of the people I know using it. That's a strawman that just won't go away.

Rust applies constraints regarding memory use and that nearly eliminates a class of bugs, provided safe usage. And that's compelling to enough people that it warrants migration from other languages that don't focus on memory safety. Bugs introduced during a rewrite aren't notable. It happens, they get fixed, life moves on.