So if you're going to claim that Ted "isn't wrong", but on terms that no one was originally arguing...
Perhaps I am taking a more general implication of this than "Rust would not have exactly reproduced the Heartbleed problem". I infer the overall meaning of Ted's argument, and the general discussion that "Memory safe languages do not prevent information leakage". To me that is what the argument is about.
Nothing 'prevents' information leakage other than writing perfect code 100% of the time.
If the argument is that you can write a program in Rust that tells someone something they shouldn't know… is that… what's even the argument here? Is that even a question?
But in that case, comparing against Heartbleed is pointless. Why not ask about SQL injection attacks? Or directory traversal attacks? Or OS privilege escalation attacks? Or listening on a port that isn't correctly firewalled? Rust won't prevent any of those either, because none of them have anything to do with the language being used.
Arguing that it's possible to write code that does the wrong thing is so pointless that I can't understand why this article was written other than as some kind of half-assed hatchet job.
Perhaps I am taking a more general implication of this than "Rust would not have exactly reproduced the Heartbleed problem". I infer the overall meaning of Ted's argument, and the general discussion that "Memory safe languages do not prevent information leakage". To me that is what the argument is about.