It's not though. It's fast enough for many applications but if you need to write a hypervisor then suddenly bounds checks and atomic pointers become significant. Not to mention that rust dramatically reduces your ability to control where memory is allocated.
I write in rust and c++, rust isn't as fast. Rust is easier to work with and, compared to the Java crap it's replacing at my work, it's a lot better but it's certainly not zero cost abstractions the way c++ can be, nor is it great for data oriented design because you're hoping the compiler will do the right thing, consistently.
Calculated risk? Nah those guys are gloriously insane. They do minimize risks, but they also go into the air wright-bro-style except instead of a glider that will go 200m they're strapped to two experimental jets in an airframe that was welded, not pressed ^^
Sorry I was painting a broad image. I'm also worried about copyright infringement, discovery, someone switching to a different different that requires glpl, etc
Most of them involve very weird and unlikely scenarios and bad security practices or access to the ffmpeg binaries and being allowed to run arbitrary commands at an elevated permission.
In and of itself there's not a massive issue from what I can see, they're entry vectors that can lead to worse situations.
That's not to say they're not serious but if a Russian hacking group is using one of them it's in conjunction with other exploits or security flaws. Which is common in practice when it comes to decoding.
Speed and security are not good bedfellows. Combine that with really shitty standards and dozens of years of development...
Oh, and licensing. Licensing is the real killer. I could just write my own mp3 decoder easily (the format not the file type) but I'm not gonna risk my company getting sued into the ground by doing that.
Forcing developers to consider and more is harmful though. You're arguing to put all of the forethought upfront, when you have the least context and least understanding of what can go wrong, and carrying that complexity forward rather than starting simple and refactoring over time.
So I've got a foot in each camp, I think you're just using different languages - you guys mean different things with the same words.
You can't claim he doesn't know what he's talking about with a single point he may have gotten run, the makes a tonne of valid points, especially around the existing problems of C++ that this library doesn't help with.
In addition to that, he's not wrong about this library from a user perspective. I can't use this. I wrote something very similar back in 2016 - at the time it served my needs but now it's hilariously outdated.
Is it? It's kind of the heart of the matter - just because something is common doesn't mean it's acceptable. The difference is that in our society we've all agreed the sacrificing is no longer acceptable.
I write in rust and c++, rust isn't as fast. Rust is easier to work with and, compared to the Java crap it's replacing at my work, it's a lot better but it's certainly not zero cost abstractions the way c++ can be, nor is it great for data oriented design because you're hoping the compiler will do the right thing, consistently.