[steveklabnik]

> however after 10 years of practice there not so bad ;)

I know; I've been using them for over 20 years.

If you're that confident in your knowledge here, then using Rust wouldn't be a problem for you: you can go the unsafe route and just do the same thing you'd do in C.

> doesn't match my experience.

Sure. Your experience hasn't been in Rust. That is, when you have generics, and a good package manager, there's virtually no reason to write your own, as you can always use one that already exists. C doesn't have those things, and so you end up doing a lot more work yourself compared to Rust.

[Accipitriform]

"If you're that confident in your knowledge here, then using Rust wouldn't be a problem for you: you can go the unsafe route and just do the same thing you'd do in C."

That's what I didn't understand - why the author didn't just use "unsafe". There's nothing intrinsically bad about using "unsafe", you just have to test that code thoroughly. There's plenty of robust C code out there.

[hmm_really]

Okay thats the bit that I was missing, seems a reasonable compromise!

[steveklabnik]

Yup. It’s a totally reasonable thing to do here. It’s why it exists!