Nothing is stopping you from running all of that on rust code though. In fact, you probably should just for sanity. Compilers have bugs. Libraries have bugs. At the lowest levels there’s unsafe somewhere anyway. Rust doesn’t remove the need for those things as good engineering practice. It just makes sure that the danger of failing to do so is minimized. Also, when there is a failure, it’ll be limited to very specific code paths (barring compiler bugs which themselves aren’t thaaat common all things considered).
Does Rust stable support the commonly-used sanitizers (ASan, TSan, UBSan, etc.) though? The last time I've checked it was still a work in progress
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/39699).
It’s not stabilized yet but it runs fine on x86_64. I don’t really see why it not being in stable is a huge blocker. It’s a bit inconvenient, but you can always rebuild your project with nightly, no?
That's beside the point. The OP was claiming that the article author is showing hubris, and I was just pointing out that, assuming their claims about what tools they use are all true, they are in fact showing more care than any project which relies only on the compiler and runtime system for memory safety.
