@moffintosh >if manual resource management is better, while is in fact worse.
There's always the option to only use stack memory in C and the compiler does manage that for you automatically.

There's also dynamic memory manager libraries, but why would you want that?

Yes, proprietary software developers are unable to write secure programs, as they always write bloated messes that are impossible to secure, who would have though?

If chrome was written in rust, it'd have more bugs, as rust requires more lines to do most things than in sepples and don't forget that more code == more bugs - maybe less memory bugs, but more of other kinds of bugs with the same security consequences.

>assume that somehow you'll be able to correctly reimplement the functionality you need
I don't need to, based GNU hackers have already implemented everything I need in GNU libraries and I just need to call into it.

Those libraries are well debugged and have an error rate far below the usual - sure mistakes are sometimes made, but the bug soon is fixed and then it's a matter of updating the library in the package manager and the issue is fixed, all thanks to dynamic linking.

When there's a bug in a rust library, you don't get the bugfix in any software until the package maintainer updates the statically linked version - which will sure take a while with say 200 packages than depend on a vulnerable library (sure rust has dynamic linking, but it doesn't seem to be used often).