This has been a strong part of Rust culture for a long time. One might remember last year when Ted T'so started yelling at someone given a presentation on rust at a Linux developer conference. The thing the presenter kept saying was "we need your (c developers) help in figuring out the semantic meeting of this code so we can encode it in the rust version"
I find personally that this is the biggest advantage of Rust for the kind of code I write. Memory safety is great and all, but an aggressive GC would do just fine for what I tend to work on.
But the culture around Rust is such that libraries on average tend to be of much higher quality - more correct, better APIs, more assumptions encoded into the type system rather than punted to runtime, etc.
This has been a strong part of Rust culture for a long time. One might remember last year when Ted T'so started yelling at someone given a presentation on rust at a Linux developer conference. The thing the presenter kept saying was "we need your (c developers) help in figuring out the semantic meeting of this code so we can encode it in the rust version"
https://lowendbox.com/blog/nontechnical-nonsense-rust-stirs-...
I find personally that this is the biggest advantage of Rust for the kind of code I write. Memory safety is great and all, but an aggressive GC would do just fine for what I tend to work on.
But the culture around Rust is such that libraries on average tend to be of much higher quality - more correct, better APIs, more assumptions encoded into the type system rather than punted to runtime, etc.
This is shared with languages from ALGOL linage like Ada, Object Pascal, Modula-2 and others.
Hence why from C culture point of view they used to be referred to as programming with straightjacket.
An insight into this be read on books like "The School of Niklaus Wirth" or "Building High Integrity Applications with SPARK".