Rust Is More Strict Which Makes It More Secure

Rust is that helicopter parent who freaks out if you're 0.001 seconds late for curfew. "What do you MEAN your integer is 1 bit different? I'm literally going to crash this entire program right now!" Meanwhile, Python is that chill uncle who lets you drink beer at 16. "Oh, you want to convert a floating point number into a Toyota car object? Sure thing, kiddo! What could possibly go wrong? We'll figure it out at runtime!" And that's why half of us are in therapy and the other half are debugging production crashes at 3 AM.

Rust evangelists: *screeching intensifies* when they discover 19.11% of Rust libraries use the unsafe keyword, while C++ sits smugly at the dinner table knowing it doesn't need to mark anything as unsafe because everything is potentially unsafe by default. It's like bragging about having 19.11% of your codebase labeled "might explode" while C++ just assumes you're smart enough to know the whole thing is a minefield. Memory safety theater at its finest!

The funeral for C/C++ has been announced prematurely for decades now. Every few years, some shiny new language comes along and declares itself the "C++ killer" while C++ just smirks from its grave and continues powering literally everything from operating systems to game engines. Meanwhile, C/C++ developers are just chilling next to their own tombstone like "Oh no... anyway" while counting the performance gains their manual memory management provides. The language might be older than most developers using it, but it refuses to die with the stubbornness of that one legacy codebase no one wants to refactor.

BEHOLD! The TypeScript mascot being STRANGLED by someone wearing a Rust bracelet! The AUDACITY! The DRAMA! This is basically the software equivalent of Game of Thrones, but with programming languages instead of noble houses! The Rust evangelists have gone TOO FAR this time - not content with telling everyone their memory-safe paradise is superior, they're now physically assaulting poor TypeScript! Next they'll be telling us that "undefined is not a function" wouldn't happen if we just rewrote everything in Rust! THE HORROR!

The duality of developers in their natural habitat. The top panel shows the stoic, unimpressed face when someone mentions they built "software" — the programming equivalent of saying "I breathe oxygen." But the bottom panel? Pure primal excitement when someone specifies it's "software written in Rust." Nothing triggers the dopamine receptors of a modern developer quite like hearing about memory safety without garbage collection. The Rust evangelism strike force claims another victim. I'd judge, but my pupils dilate too when someone mentions "zero-cost abstractions."

Ah, the great language wars continue. Rust evangelists love to preach about memory safety while conveniently ignoring that you basically have to type "unsafe" every time you need to do anything actually useful. It's like having a car with 15 seatbelts but you have to unbuckle them all just to reach the gas pedal. The irony is delicious - a language designed for safety that forces you to explicitly opt out of that safety to get real work done. Reminds me of that coworker who lectures everyone about clean code but has a "temporary" folder with 5 years of hacks.