They’re intrinsically related to having the concept of “borrowing” in some form. Rust is an implementation detail / preference.

Granted, but do you have another example of a language that does that? I'm not aware of any. If there were then I would think you argument valid.

You can model borrow semantics relatively easily in both LISP and C++ (and likely countless other contemporary languages) with varying static/dynamic components, it just takes a bit of infrastructure and perhaps some static or dynamic indirection. It’s not “built in” like it is in Rust. The Chromium team did this in C++ as a proof of concept (with notable caveats) somewhat recently: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSt2VB1zQAJ6JDMa...

Additionally even though this system uses Rust, there is quite a bit of custom support code to coax the system into building for a particular memory-mapping. While you are doing that I don’t see why it wouldn’t be roughly the same amount of infrastructure work in another language. Again, may just require the user to interact with the protected resources through an indirect API instead of language-native constructs but that is more of an ergonomics issue than a feasibility one.

But... why? Why would they do that? Like why would they go so out of their way not to mention Rust, to the extent that they would discuss borrowing in LISP or C++?

That's insanity.

The comment above mine asked for an example. There is a reasonable interpretation of my comment that doesn’t seem like insanity. We can meet there.

At this point, I have lost track of your argument. Do you object to Hubris being written in Rust or do you object to Cliff explaining why Hubris is written in Rust?

I don’t object to Hubris being written in Rust, that would be silly. My argument is really simply my opinion that the talk would have been more interesting if it were less focused on how Rust was used to make Hubris and more focused on how specific high level software techniques and concepts were used to make Hubris.

I don’t really need a long winded justification for why this is written in Rust. Everyone knows that ultimately comes down to a mix of personal preference and tool availability. I can fill in the details myself how the high level software techniques presented would map to Rust constructs.

I'm not sure what you can really accuse of being long-winded here, but it's clear that the presentation hits a nerve for you, so probably best left at that.