I'm not sure what "memory safety" has to do with skill regarding "language architecture." In fact, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that whole bit.
Memory safety isn't a bad thing. But maybe pushing it as the thing will end up making it harder for newer systems programmers to be comfortable dropping into "unsafe-Rust" when it's necessary out of fear, or harder for them to learn the lessons that C and C++ folks have had to when they do have to use "unsafe-Rust". We just don't know what the impact will be in that regard. It's part of being a young language--it just needs time to develop.
Your second paragraph pretty much nails my thinking exactly. Memory safety is a very good thing, but having to manage memory/the stack/etc is kind of an IQ test that filters out contributions of generally low quality.
At least that's the theory. Thinking about it, there are probably people out there who can nail things like memory management but are terrible at eg higher-level application architecture to such an extent that they're ultimately not competent engineers anyway. It's possible at least.
Memory safety isn't a bad thing. But maybe pushing it as the thing will end up making it harder for newer systems programmers to be comfortable dropping into "unsafe-Rust" when it's necessary out of fear, or harder for them to learn the lessons that C and C++ folks have had to when they do have to use "unsafe-Rust". We just don't know what the impact will be in that regard. It's part of being a young language--it just needs time to develop.
reply