> You… almost literally did?

I don't understand this comment, to be honest. What does it add to the conversation?

Why shouldn’t this kind of inconsistency be pointed out?

I’m happy to believe GP didn’t say exactly what they intended to or simply misremembered what exactly they said previously. It’s certainly something I’ve done before in an online conversation. And when it’s happened to me I’ve appreciated having it pointed out explicitly so I could clarify what my thoughts actually were. Often it’s because I misstated my opinion without realizing.

Either that’s the case here (what I’m choosing to believe) and it gives GP an opportunity to explain further or GP is engaging in this discussion in bad faith. In either case, I don’t see the downside.

You might be right, it's probably just easier to ask :)

So, when I wrote the message I was really physically and mentally tired, I wrote from the phone which unfortunately doesn't always help me write 100% consistent sentences.

Finally I just used wrong wording. As I mentioned in another comment, the improvement is clear and it's the new way forward. In my opinion it simply doesn't solve all memory safety issues, and while with c and c++ you know unfortunately what you get, with Rust or Swift you might get a false sense of 100% safety where there is not.

In my experience, almost no Rust programmers believe that it's a silver bullet that results in 100% safety. Certainly orders of magnitude fewer people than people seem to believe exists.

What it does do is drastically cut down the number of places you have to deeply audit.