Certain minimum knowledge is required if you don’t want to be low hanging fruit for criminal botnet operators who will use your system to launch attacks.

You can’t also beg/complain about tools “made for you” not existing - if they’re not already there, it may mean the problem can’t be reduced to appliance-user level.

If you’re building such a tool, why ask? Get uptake rate and user feedback data.

it’s weird how often these same strawman arguments are the response when Rust’s safety advantage over C comes up. Usually the same adolescent tone too.

lol dude, I know what I’m talking about. I’ve been a software engineer for 30 years.

Ah, I’m thinking US ZIP Code

I think we can simplify this with one slider that covers the entire range of post codes: 00000 - 99999

This is what a tryhard looks like, lol! You’re really twisting yourself around to “win” aren’t you?

Our team has reviewed this interaction, and cannot issue a refund at this time.

While you’re spouting nonsense, this is happening:

https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/11/redis-vulnerability-redishell/

The vulnerability exploits a 13-year-old UAF memory corruption bug in Redis, allowing a post-auth attacker to send a crafted Lua script to escape the default Lua sandbox and execute arbitrary native code. This grants full host access, enabling data theft, wiping, encryption, resource hijacking, and lateral movement within cloud environments.

13 years. That’s how long it took to find a critical safety vulnerability in one of the most popular C open source codebases, Redis. This is software that was expertly written by some of the best engineers in the world and yet, mistakes can still happen! It’s just that in C a “mistake” can often mean a memory-safety bug that would put user data at risk (…) That’s the nature of memory-safety bugs in C: they can hide in plain sight.

You care, you are the one that brought it up as an issue with rust.

I ask as a rhetorical question to shed light on the fact that compiler back doors are a vanishingly small fraction of total security exploits, while the memory bugs that rust specifically addresses make up the vast majority.

how many compiler back doors have we seen versus use-after-free/stack overflow attacks?

The anti-Rust crowd baffles me. Maybe C++ has rotted their brain to the point they can’t “get” the borrow checker.

My only complaint is that its syntax is an ugly mishmash. Should have copied scala or f#