Unless your point is merely that average Joes write such terrible code that you don't even need memory safety issues to exploit their software, [citation needed]
Google says memory safety issues are 75% of exploited zero days. (https://security.googleblog.com/2024/10/safer-with-google-ad...)
Which isn't to say Rust wouldn't have caught many of the other memory safety issues, but 75% is horribly misleading.
Which is... true? but irrelevant. Such applications are not suggested to be ported to Rust. Of course, some people still do that, because they like Rust; but that's their personal choice.
For a language as ugly as Rust, my thought is that people should actually be using Ada, and have a mathematically provable correctness angle; not just a replacement for C/C++ with memory safety.
If memory safety issues are 75% of exploited zero days it sounds to me like they're the biggest issue in the ecosystem by far.
Most exploited code probably exists in the application layer in a high-level, memory safe language. I would wager that but I don’t have time to cite ten papers on HN.
It's a bit like saying you should program in C, because formal verification tool X generates C code hence C is safe.
I think formal verification is the way to go with AI moving forward.
The borrow checker does add something, but it definitely costs something as well in multiple ways, also in terms of how it is done in Rust and at a programming language design perspective.
It would be very funny if you were batting for Rust, and just having a laugh at others here.
how old are you?