Marketing. There is no sane reason to reimplement things in Rust, unless they have been a constant security problem. For example, reimplementing Bind would probably a good idea with their constant crap. But you can just move to alternatives. Same for Sendmail, but Postfix is an excellent replacement.
Reimplementing commandline-tools that are not a problem is pure insanity.
It would seem that adopting Rust, which is supposed to be safe by design, would relieve developers of the duty to write safe code.
It very much does not. And Rust is not "safe by design" either, that is nonsense. It can prevent or reduce some forms of problems, mostly from the areas of memory safety and effects like race-conditions. But look at PHP, which is completely memory safe and still one of the worst source of security problems.
What Rust does is to allow actually competent secure code developers to focus more on the remaining problems, of which there are many.
What Rust lacks to be taken fully serious is a specification. No, an implementation can never replace a specification, that idea is amateur-level.
but the amount of CO2 produced is so miniscule compared to burning fossil fuels that to a good first approximation it is zero.
Actually, that would be a lie by misdirection, because the actual competition are renewables and storage and there nuclear does not look too good. Not that the nuclear fanatics are above lying
These people operate on the same level as clueless major software makers like Cloudstrike, Microsoft, etc. Hence while this could be done a lot better and competently, these people just do not have the skills.
Some still do that. And some send ransomware threats when there is no attack. Apparently the both approaches continue to work to some degree.
Otherwise they would be able to make more money (as soon as you take risk-costs into account) in a regular job.
Rust (or any tool for that matter) is of no benefit if it makes the people using it more complacent towards the problems it can't prevent.
I agree on that. But I do not think the tool choice plays a role in whether people take something seriously or not. Some people do understand risk and risk management, but most simply do not and nothing will change that. The benefit of Rust is that it is likely quite a bit harder to learn that C and that selects the people for those that actually want to do this right and are willing to invest significant effort and bring significant talent to the table. And that may make a significant difference. In any case, I do not think it will make things worse. But we will find out.
Good question. Probably not. Lets hope the crashing starts in 2026, or the damage will be even more massive.
The only one here talking about "rampart" is you. Shows that you are arguing in bad faith,
For regular PCs that is. Data-center loads or, worse, AI loads, sure.
All I ever hear is bitching and moaning after Ukraine blew up the Nordstream pipeline about how energy availability is out of control and causing German companies to close or relocate to America.
And where did you "hear" that? Because the only factor I see is some (!) German manufacturers thinking (!) about moving parts (!) of their production to the US because of the tariffs (!). Most (!) then decide against it after looking at the facts.
Nuclear is not even "CO2 free". Mining, refinement and transport of the fuel creates a lot of CO2. So will creating processing and long-term storage for the waste, but that CO2 has not yet manifested.
It never ceases to amaze me how many Germans are willing to defend their abject failure of an energy policy
Simple: That "failure" is your hallucination and not real.
Natgas for _baseload_??? Are you on drugs?
While the Rust community is certainly toxic in parts, the language has one really big advantage: It is hard to learn!
My take is this does more for security and reliability than all the security features it has, because it keeps the clueless coders (which is the majority) out of it.
Now please fix the one glaring defect Rust has: No spec. And no, do not tell me "the implementation is the spec". That is amateur-hour nonsense.
He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.
