Jonathan Blow

I am not talking about absolutely no bugs. I am just saying, an approach that is about general correctness, would look very different from an approach that is about memory safety + resource ownership.

It's fine, I think it's good that Rust is researching how to do a good job with memory safety + resource ownership without being a managed language. I just wish they would be clearer about what they are doing, and over-promise less.

How are they over-promising? (Honest question, I'd like to know your POV)

It's just distorted rhetoric. Almost none of the bugs we see are memory safety problems or resource deallocation problems. So the amount by which Rust would reduce our bug load is pretty small. So I don't think it can claim that it addresses correctness.

There is value in having more confidence that your program is memory-safe, if you are concerned about attackers. (But I also think we should just redesign our operating systems so we are less worried about attackers).

I think you're underestimating the influence of memory safety. In particular, more than avoiding vulnerabilities, it's avoiding aliasing: every bit has a clear owner. The compiler forces you to do that. And that is incredibly helpful. Lemme try to explain what I meanx

Think of a multithreaded system. How do you cooperate between threads? How do you share memory? That is not easy, and more often than not you end up pulling the rug from under some other thread's feet.

Rust forces you to not do that: only one thread can examine memory that's being modified at one particular time. This is their restriction on aliasing.