> They claim it is better just because of the language
I mean, it clearly is better (in certain contexts), see e.g. https://blog.google/security/rust-in-android-move-fast-fix-t...
> We adopted Rust for its security and are seeing a 1000x reduction in memory safety vulnerability density compared to Android’s C and C++ code. But the biggest surprise was Rust's impact on software delivery. With Rust changes having a 4x lower rollback rate and spending 25% less time in code review, the safer path is now also the faster one.
Bugs are not only related to memory and a program cannot be considered safe Just because it got rid of pointers, malloc and free.
If you really think that switching language is the main driver to get safe programs, the you are on the list of people replaceable by LLMs.
Othewise you have to understand that architettural chioces, concurrency, (weak) cryptographic function and user stupidity have a significant impact, no matter what language you use. Memory management is just a part of the problem.
> If you really think that switching language is the main driver to get safe programs [...]
I didn't write that.
> [...] the you are on the list of people replaceable by LLMs.
lol, love a high quality discussion
> Memory management is just a part of the problem.
Sure, then using Rust is a step forward, because that's one less thing you have to worry about. Seat belts don't save all people, but a car equipped with seat belts is - on average - safer than a car without seat belts.
I can imagine LLM can, or will be able to, write safe C too. At least safer than people can.