If you needed any more evidence that memory safety is the future...

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 14:35:44 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> It's like the new safety features on handheld buzzsaws which 
> make it basically impossible to cut yourself. Should people be 
> using these things safely? Yes. But, accidents happen, so the 
> tool's design takes human behavior into account and we're all 
> the better for it.

Chainsaws are effective, but dangerous. So you should have both 
training and use safety equipment. Training and safety equipment 
is available for C-like languages (to the level of provable 
correctness), and such that it doesn't change the runtime 
performance.

But at the end of the day it all depends, for some context it 
matters less if program occasionally fails than others. It is 
easier to get a small module correct than a big application with 
many interdependencies etc.

If you don't want to max out performance you might as well 
consider Go, Java, C#, Swift etc. I don't really buy into the 
idea that a single language has to cover all bases.