[sdfzug]

now please translate it into non-marketing words, please.

He says Rust is on the top safe (vertical), but not at the bottom, because the bottom isn't fully proven.

He also says Zig is horizontally safe -> there is unsafe code on any layer, but also safe code. Also, it doesn't seem like there is something like "unsafe" for Zig. How can you say anything is safe then?

So Zig has one feature that makes it harder (impossible?) to write broken code than with Rust in UNSAFE code. How does this bring anything to the table besides eloquently dismiss Rusts safety guarantees? E.g. allowing to state libraries to only have safe code in them>

Afaik Rust let's you fully use the HW as well (and as much as possible within safe code).

[chubot]

The safety guarantees don't come for free. There are tradeoffs. That should be clear from the fact that Rust as a language is still changing, i.e. relaxing ownership rules and adding new mechanisms to the type system. If there were no problems, then there would be no language changes necessary.

Examples of people writing Rust code and hitting problems of expressiveness and performance:

My experience crafting an interpreter with Rust https://ceronman.com/2021/07/22/my-experience-crafting-an-in... (I'd be interested in experiences from others who have implemented a GC'd language runtime in Rust)

Also see Why I rewrote my Rust keyboard firmware in Zig: consistency, mastery, and fun https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26374268

You can argue about how much the tradeoffs matter, which is heavily domain specific. But you can't argue that the tradeoffs don't exist.