Comment by pron

> While it might be Turing complete, it can't express equivalent behavior to a C program.

Neither can safe Rust! But this is easier to see in my example because parity is a very functional, as opposed to technical property.

> This is one of those quotes like "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good".

I am not calling for perfect. Quite the opposite. I am saying that software correctness is extremely complicated, and even the biggest researchers in the field have been surprised by outcomes that were counterintuitive to them. Yet you seem to have decided that Rust gives the best results of everything that's available, while I have my doubts, especially because I see how people are turning away from Rust and how much it struggles to capture a significant portion of the low-level programming market even at its quite advanced age. I don't think there's a single language in the top ten that's had such low adoption at Rust's current age, and that's not the kind of thing you expect to see with a technology whose excited but small fanbase claim to hit an excellent pragmatic sweet spot.

> We have empirical evidence that Rust has measurable impact on bugs, especially memory safety ones.

Compared to C, yes. That's exactly what you expect if more sound guarantees help and then hurt -- a language with some sound guarantees to be better than a language with virtually none. But that is not to say that other languages with either more or less sound guarantees aren't an even better sweet spot.