Is it possible you’ve misunderstood what Rust promises?

> It isn't possible to create a programing language that doesn't allow bugs to happen

Yes, that’s true. No one doubts this. Except you seem to think that Rust promises no bugs at all? I don’t know where you got this impression from, but it is incorrect.

Rust promises that certain kinds of bugs like use-after-free are much, much less likely. It eliminates some kinds of bugs, not all bugs altogether. It’s possible that you’ve read the claim on kinds of bugs, and misinterpreted it as all bugs.

I’ve had this conversation before, and it usually ends like https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah

"Rust" obviously does not promise that.

On the other hand, there are too many less-experienced Rust fans who do claim that "Rust" promises this and that any project that does not use Rust is doomed and that any of the existing decades-old software projects should be rewritten in Rust to decrease the chances that they may have bugs.

What is described in TFA is not surprising at all, because it is exactly what has been predicted about this and other similar projects.

Anyone who desires to rewrite in Rust any old project, should certainly do it. It will be at least a good learning experience and whenever an ancient project is rewritten from scratch, the current knowledge should enable the creation of something better than the original.

Nonetheless, the rewriters should never claim that what they have just produced has currently less bugs than the original, because neither they nor Rust can guarantee this, but only a long experience with using the rewritten application.

Such rewritten software packages should remain for years as optional alternatives to the originals. Any aggressive push to substitute the originals immediately is just stupid.