> At least from a PR point of view, it seems that some important companies
> (some of the heaviest C++ users), are thinking that a language that
> offers memory safety is worth trying, even to replace code that
> previously was written in C++.
>
> Other resource types are important, but maybe their impact in Security
> is not as big. Apart from personal dislikes like in the Linux kernel, it
> seems that memory safety promises are big enough to invest a
> considerable effort in alternative languages for currently C++ codebases.

I agree, and I am pretty confident that we could offer memory safety
guarantees for code that asks for it with relatively minor changes,
potentially even fully attribute driven, and without affecting existing
code that does not want these checks.

I still haven't found a good solution yet for "destructive" moves, i.e.
moves where the source is completely gone and no destructor should be
called. But we can probably find a solution for this, too. I just did
not want to spend more time on this until it is clear that there is at
least some interest in this feature.

Best

Thomas