“If it compiles it’s probably correct” has always been a tongue-in-cheek pithy exaggeration. I heard it among Haskell programmers long before I heard it in the context of Rust. And guess what? Haskell programs have bugs too.
If you say so, I believe you. That isn’t how it comes across in daily, granted pithy, discourse around here.
I have a lot of respect for you Andrew, not meaning to attack you per se. You surely can see the irony in the internet falling over because of an app written in rust, and all that comes with this whole story, no?
Nobody credible has ever said that Rust will fix all your problems 100% of the time. If that's what you inferred was being sold based on random HN commentary, then you probably want to revisit how you absorb information.
Rust has always been about reducing bugs, with a specific focus on bugs as a result of undefined behavior. It has never, isn't and will never be able to eliminate all bugs. At minimum, you need formal methods for that.
Rust programs can and will have bugs as a result of undefined behavior. The value proposition is that their incidence should be markedly lower than programs written in C or C++ (i.e., implementations of languages that are memory unsafe by default).
Heard, chef.