Not necessarily. Language evangelists can be incredibly annoying... actually, evangelists in general can be really annoying. It is cathartic to prove annoying people wrong every once in a while.
When there's a memory related bug (or CVE) in a program written in C or C++, there's almost always some comment about how the Rust compiler would've caught it
On HN there is often: A comment about Rust would catch this (sometimes sarcastic), an explanation about how the bug isn't "really" memory safety and so Rust wouldn't catch it, followed by a comment explaining actually Rust does catch it.
The recent Linux mutex security bug is an example. That's not a memory safety bug. Surely Rust doesn't help? But Rust's mutual exclusion design relies on the Rust type system to give us safer locks, in Rust you protect things by having "lock the mutex" be the way you get the reference to the protected object. Thus when the faulty code locks the wrong mutex in Rust it would get the wrong object, and either not compile (you lock variable A and then you're trying to change B but you don't even have B) or not work (you always lock variable A, then change variable A, but your code should change B, it does not work, trivially reproducible bug in your code)
