It remains to be seen whether that approach will guarantee memory safety. Last I checked, it had gaping soundness holes related to aliasing. (Note: most of the complexity and innovation in Rust is about controlling aliasing.)
When all the soundness holes are closed, then we'll have to evaluate whether it's usable to program in. At the very least, Rust is years ahead here.
Even if those hold up, you have to consider whether rewriting your C++ code to fit the safe subset is actually worthwhile, compared to rewriting in Rust which gives you additional benefits.
When all the soundness holes are closed, then we'll have to evaluate whether it's usable to program in. At the very least, Rust is years ahead here.
Even if those hold up, you have to consider whether rewriting your C++ code to fit the safe subset is actually worthwhile, compared to rewriting in Rust which gives you additional benefits.