I would like to understand this more,

> rustc emits machine code and then cargo immediately executes it, there's the same opportunity for end user memory being corrupted (due to miscompilation) as if rustc and cargo shared a code base.

Cause this hasn't been true for me or for anyone maybe your definition of memory being corrupted is the not same as mine.

I am not even sure what you are trying to prove with this.

I appreciate the time and effort in building stuff like Roc I don't use it but this comment and the article feel like...

Oh some guy said Zig not nice because memory safety so here, a post why memory safety doesn't exist because we have to do memory unsafe things sometimes and so everything is memory unsafe already, so maybe it doesn't matter.

I get the energy that we are going for seeing useless claims and wanting to push back but I think the article deserves a clearer part 2 where you elaborate on your thoughts about stuff maybe even get it peer reviewed a bit before posting or maybe don't I guess we could use more raw thoughts in the post AI age.

Either way I appreciate someone trying to put forward their own thoughts and explain problems with a different perspective.

Scenario A: A program has a memory vulnerability. That's bad, and the reason it's bad: attacker-controlled data can potentially trigger this vulnerability, which could even lead to privilege escalation.

Scenario B: A program writes machine code in an executable region of memory, and the code has a memory vulnerability. That's bad, and the reason it's bad: attacker-controlled data can potentially trigger this vulnerability, which could even lead to privilege escalation.

Scenario C: A program write machine code to disk, which is then read into memory and executed. That's bad, and the reason it's bad: attacker-controlled data can potentially trigger this vulnerability, which could even lead to privilege escalation.