[mdup]

It's entirely a myth that unsafe is needed to get speed boosts in Rust. Usually, the standard library, as well as other crates, offer optimal performance without resorting to unsafe code.

(If we go pedantic, Vec and other primitives do rely on unsafe, but the point is as an application developer you don't have to write unsafe code yourself.)

[twic]

It's not entirely a myth. There are situations where you can't get the compiler to emit optimal code using only safe Rust. You can go a very long way with only safe Rust (and i do!), but not everywhere.

[jononor]

There are also situations where you cannot get a C++ compiler to emit optimal code without resorting to intrinsics or inline Assembly. 99% of Rust and C++ code performs well without going that deep.

[skohan]

Unsafe rust exists for a reason. There are cases where perfectly safe code cannot be expressed according to Rust's ownership rules, and an escape hash is needed. Of course the "average" developer probably should not resort to unsafe as a rule of thumb.

Also regarding the standard library, as far as I understand it's not entirely true that it never resorts to unsafe rust. For example, I understand that the standard library makes use of specialization, which remains an unstable feature because of a soundness hole in the implementation.

[oconnor663]

> Also regarding the standard library, as far as I understand it's not entirely true that it never resorts to unsafe rust.

I think you're misunderstanding the parent comment. The stdlib constantly resorts to unsafe code. Tons of methods like `split_at_mut` and `make_ascii_uppercase` are just safe wrappers around an unsafe one-liner.

Rather, the observation is that _with the benefit of the stdlib and common crates_, most programs have no performance reason to reach for unsafe in regular code. That's true in my experience.

[skohan]

I agree that most developers don't need to bother with unsafe code, and will not pay a performance penalty for staying within safe rust. My only point is that it's not necessary to be so dogmatic as to say that no-one should ever write a line of unsafe rust.

For instance, if you read the rust book, they make references to times you might want to use unsafe:

> Borrowing different parts of a slice is fundamentally okay because the two slices aren’t overlapping, but Rust isn’t smart enough to know this. When we know code is okay, but Rust doesn’t, it’s time to reach for unsafe code.

[oconnor663]

Agreed. My guess is that folks tend to talk past each other on these questions, and that the important details aren't really controversial.

[simias]

In my experience most of the time I had to use unsafe was to bind unsafe interface (think something like making raw OpenGL bindings for instance, you'll have unsafe code all over the place and you'll have write your own safe wrappers around it). Performance-wise I very rarely find myself having to compromise, although there are times where I have to write "smarter", more complicated code to get good performance without unsafe.

I just looked at the code of a pretty heavily optimized program I've been working on for a few months, I have exactly one instance of unsafe in the code:

   pub const GPIO_ID: StreamId = StreamId(unsafe { NonZeroU16::new_unchecked(0xf610) });

I need the unsafe because at the moment the language is not smart enough to understand that 0xf610 is obviously non-zero and that I can build a NonZeroU16 from it without fail (at least I don't know how to express this in static expression at the moment). This has no performance implications whatsoever.