> because by our definition of “knowing”, we never get to know anything.

I was talking about the common scientific method. You can define "know" as "the vast majority of the target community is sufficiently convinced that something is true."

> and use of Zig in the wild shows that the issue is unsurprisingly very common in Zig, as it is in C

You've seen absolutely no such thing.

> So, yes we cannot be sure that there aren't second orders or third orders effects that makes Rust less than optimal and compensate for this massive difference, but there exist no convincing list of such hypothetical effects that could have a significant impact in Rust's ability to build correct software

I am not doubting Rust's ability to build correct software, just the claim that it's obviously the best approach.

> Rust has a strong emphasis on explicitness

I think you don't understand what "explicitness" means in this context, as Rust relies on more implicitness than most popular languages.

> So have clear evidences of a strong first order effect in favor of Rust, and no compelling evidences for adverse higher orders effects, that's what our current knowledge is.

Taken as is, you're once again claiming that your belief requires no evidence. Taken more charitably, what you're saying is that you believe it because it is very obvious to you. In that case, either it will be easily verified by the evidence and rather quickly, or it will be shown wrong just like previous "obvious" beliefs regarding software correctness.

What you can't do is is demand evidence from others because what's obvious to them isn't obvious to you, and at the same time claim that what's obvious to you and isn't obvious to others should be assumed true.

> because Haskell cannot really pinpoint a significant edge over other languages

I don't know if you're aware how this kind of argumentation sounds to others, but are you really comfortable making such arguments to support what is a scientific claim? Not only did Haskell supporters say the exact same thing (their edge over, say, Clojure was, of course the type system) but even after time and again we see how complex this subject is, how elaborate the interactions, you make an argument that is not much stronger than, "well, I have more money in my wallet than you, and since I can't immediately see any indication that you have more in your bank we can safely assume I'm richer than you."

> But Zig carries a significant burden in that regard

And Rust carries a significant burden, too: it hinders, in comparison, the two most effective assurance methods we have, tests and code reviews. Just as importantly, too many people find complex languages unappealing, and so the impact a language that not many people would use cannot be large.

Now, I am not trying to convince you that you're wrong, just that different things are obvious to different people, and unless something is obvious to pretty much everyone -- which clearly isn't the case here -- you cannot expect others to just accept your belief, however strongly you believe it, while demanding evidence from them for not accepting it.

The fact is that however obvious it may seem to you, other do not not seem to think that it is obvious that Rust leads to more correct software than, say, Zig. If you're trying to convince others of that, then you have to support it by their standard, not yours (of "faith alone suffices"). I would suggest not repeating arguments that are not only logically weak but have failed just recently, and prefer empirical evidence.

But hey, do what you want, and if you believe that everyone should be convinced or that perhaps everyone is already convinced -- that's fine, too. Just don't be surprised when others find such assertions of faith somewhat cultish and not a good look for programmers.

And you know what? If you think your argument is so scientifically convincing, try writing a science paper making the claim that Rust yields to better correctness than Zig.

Until then, programmers will use whatever language we find most aesthetically pleasing, enjoyable, or profitable.