It actually may to a large extend.
It’s just that normally a language may not be so obviously superior to another. It may be up to subjective debate whether specific features are better or worse. And all you get is a syntax war in the forums defending their religion or reasonability though, trying to avoid having to learn yet another language.
However… we are not comparing C# vs F# here. We are comparing C/C++ with Rust, both are system languages a.k.a. native code languages, but one of them isn’t a safe language.
We are not comparing the lack of a semicolon in F# vs the bracket kingdom of C#. And that’s not giving enough credit to what F# brings to the table. Just my opinion, anyways.
But we talk about: Unsafe threads, seg faults, null exceptions, dangling pointers, memory leaks, etc. That kind of stuff of nightmares that is more than just syntax inconveniences, and can be avoided fully just by switching languages.
Regarding stability Rust certainly adds a massive ton to the code. With Rust you get a measurable increase in stability. That’s why MS is willing to invest a ton of money and bring Rust to their ecosystem instead of hiring better C/C++ programmers that could have avoided their “70%” of security issues. That’s not a trivial task for a company as big as MS, it ain’t done out of shear fun. And the security issues are driven by the safety issues of C/C++, it’s an unsafe language. It’s that simple in the end.
It’s like arguing that native code is faster than managed code, uhm, duh? Rust is faster than F# in general, and especially in real time applications.
Yes, Rust is a safe language. No, C/C++ isn’t a safe language. So Rust will deliver stability out of the box while C/C++ won’t.
It’s just companies like MS who got security issues to deal with that can get into the millions/billions when exploited by a hacker. That are the first to point out that C/C++ lacks safety and needs to improve or risk getting replaced by another language that is safe. Like Rust.
But to be clear. The security issues are driven by the lack of safe code, so how C/C++ handles, or rather doesn’t handle its pointers. What ever crimes C/C++ may have committed with its syntax, or bloat, the biggest issue is safety even for non security critical applications. Getting a seg fault, undefined behaviors, memory leaks, etc, ain’t “stability” it’s a waste of productive time because you are using an inferior language.
Like I said before. It would have been obviously way more ideal for C/C++ to evolve instead. But it seems that it just does so too slowly. Otherwise MS would have waited for a better version instead of considering to ditch C/C++ all together in favor of Rust and spending a ton of money and effort on reforming their giant empire.