whether the software is memory safe depends on the expertise of the devs

No. Just stop. If a language depends on the expertise of the developer to be free of memory bugs, then by definition, it is not memory safe because memory safety means such bugs are impossible by design. Quit trying to redefine what memory safety means. A program being free of memory bugs does not in any way imply memory safety.

Ah yes, I love how C++ is has so little boilerplate. Sometimes I can even write several statements in a row without any!

If the standard is “you know what you’re doing and never make mistakes”, then all languages are memory safe. All you’re doing is arguing against memory safety as a concept by redefining the term in such a way that it becomes meaningless.

It’s the only operating system with that much market share to lose.

I’m very experienced with C++and I still feel like I’m juggling chainsaws every time I use it. And I’ve personally run into into things like use after free errors while working in Chromium. It’s a massive codebase full of multithreading, callbacks, and nonlocal effects. Managing memory may be easy in a simple codebase but it’s a nightmare in Chromium. Tools like AddressSanitizer are a routine part of Chrome development for exactly that reason. And people who think memory management is easy in C++ are precisely the people I expect to introduce a lot of bugs.

Clearly Rust is a conspiracy.

You can get in touch with him eventually, but not for anything urgent. For example, I had to rescue his mom when she lost her car key because she couldn’t get in touch with him to help her.

I know a guy who doesn’t have a phone. Trying to get in touch with him is a PITA.