Zig and the design choices within

Yes, but that's an intrinsic language feature whose value needs to be justified somehow. If you justify it by saying it prevents dangerous vulnerabilities, we're back to my point.

> This matters because the effects of undefined behavior -- particularly memory-corrupting undefined behavior -- are unbounded...

While I appreciate this explanation (and I've seen it many times), I hope you understand that it's more speculative and subjective than an empirical finding. At the end of the day, to measure the danger of a problem, we need to see what the actual vulnerabilities/exploits are and how common they are. Clearly, not all undefined behaviours are equally exploitable. That's why we see differences in weakness severity among different kinds of UB.

> emperical evidence from the last 10 years clearly indicates both that it is nigh impossible to write large C/C++ applications without both spatial and temporal memory safety vulnerabilities

Right, and that same empirical evidence shows that spatial violations are the more dangerous ones, and that's exactly why Zig prevents them.

> but the comparision between Deno and Bun in the article

What article? It seems that Bun has had one CVE. If you're talking about undefined behaviour you're, again, making an unjustified extrapolation from it to security. Some undefined behaviour leads to easily exploitable vulnerabilities, some does not.

It's true that in the presence of UB, the compiler could hypothetically do anything, but to get a dangerous vulnerability it has to actually do something that's exploitable, and when we look at vulnerabilities caused by UB, we see that some kinds are more dangerous than others because of that.

BTW, this touches on something that is sometimes misunderstood about UB. UB is defined with respect to a language specification, i.e. in the presence of UB, the language specification does not assign a program a meaning, but the compiler certainly does, because machine code has no UB. The program with the UB needs to compile to an exploitable binary for a vulnerability to exist.

> and that's where the sharp line is

I agree it's a sharp intrinsic line, just as saying that Zig avoids macros is a sharp line, but the impact of that line is anything but sharp. To draw the practical conclusion from it you don't follow the findings, but ignore them!

> This doesn't really have anything to do with my point that the CVE list does not provide evidence to dismiss temporal memory safety as irrelevant

I wasn't dismissing it as irrelevant. I was saying that if Rust's value is in eliminating dangerous vulnerabilities, then Zig has that value, too, and the difference between them isn't large on that particular front.

> are not in the same league of program correctness

Software correctness is something I've been dealing with and writing about for many years, especially formal verification (https://pron.github.io), and I can tell you that you're downright wrong on that. That "more sound guarantees is always the most effective form of improving correctness" is something we know (at least since the nineties) not to be generally true, which is also why the field is looking more and more into unsound methods. For example, Rust and Zig are more likely to effectively write correct programs than ATS, even though ATS is "in a different league" from both of them when it comes to sound guarantees.

We know that sound guarantees can help, but that their cost matters a lot. We also know that reviews and tests and dynamic verification are very effective, sometimes more than sound guarantees.

Rust proponents are free to speculate that, ultimately, Rust's approach leads to more correctness than Zig, and they can base that belief on some findings, and Zig proponents can do exactly the same in the opposite direction, also based on other findings, but both are speculations. People are free to choose which they are more inclined to believe, but the question isn't settled.

> This lines up with my own experience; software I write using Rust is far easier to get right, more reliable, and easier to successfully maintain and refactor than anything else I've done.

I'm not doubting that that's your experience. I'm saying we have no evidence that it's universal, likely to be universal etc. (and I know of some opposite experiences with Rust). Sometimes certain languages just click with certain people, but we can't extrapolate without more observation.

> "there's a rather small difference between Rust and Zig" simply isn't true.

The correctness difference between the two is unknown. It could be small or large and in either direction. The intrinsic differences are, of course, known, but don't really help reach an objective preference. My point was only that if we judge Rust by the vulnerabilities it soundly eliminates, then Zig is not far on that particular metric, and it's certainly much closer to Rust than to C.

If it was about just lifetimes, Rust would be a much friendlier language. Sometimes I wonder if a less rigorous Rust would be more popular.

The point is that certain casts/type conversions can change the underlying data.

> like the int with value 3 landing in memory after calling atoi("3").

That's something else entirely. People may colloquially call this "converting a string to an integer", but what we're realling doing here is parsing a string as an integer.