I can write bad code in rust too. Rust makes it more difficult, but if you try hard you can abuse it to get the same hundreds of classes and 50 level deep calls, and 100s of threads. You can even do manual memory management in Rust - it isn't built into the language but you can call system APIs to allocate memory if you really want to be stupid. Don't do that is the answer.

Good programmers have long ago written best practices guides based on hard learned experience. Newer languages (like Rust) were designed by people who read those guides and made a language that made using those features hard.

50 levels deep? With some of the template metaprogramming I've seen, looking at just the types for just one level will not only fill your screen, but take up megabytes on disk...

> Come on. That's nothing compared to the horrors that lay in manual memory management. Like I've never worked with a C++ based application that doesn't have crashes lurking all around, so bad that even a core dump leaves you clueless as to what's happening.

Have you tried fixing the bugs in your code?

That strategy has been followed by people writing code in every single language, and when used (even with C++) you do drive down the number of these crashes to a residual/purely theoretical frequency.

Scenarios such as those you've described are rare. There should be more to them than the tool you're using to do your job. So why blame the tool?