[jjnoakes]

Sure, and if a typical Rust program that I write has no unsafe in it directly, and 5% of its dependencies' code have unsafe in them, that's also the same as writing a program in the "not c++" language directly, and using "not c++" dependencies for all but 5% of the dependency code.

Seems like a silly analogy to me, though.

[mr_00ff00]

Right but it’s that 5% the origin comment is talking about. The times when rust has to use unsafe for the type of program.

[jjnoakes]

Unsafe Rust is safer than C++, and even if it wasn't, 5% unsafe in Rust programs (in well-marked locations) is vastly superior to 100% unsafe in C++ programs.

Any analogy that equates the two is silly.

[anonymoushn]

unsafe rust is less safe than C++ because of the provenance and aliasing semantics that unsafe rust must adhere to to avoid UB, which are generally tricker than those of C++

[tialaramex]

The provenance rules in the C++ standard are basically just a shrug emoji†, so it's unclear whether those are worse, I can see an argument for the idea that obeying Aria's strict provenance experiment rules in Rust is easier - not because it's easy (although for many common cases it is) but because at least these are coherent rules.

† U+1F937 person shrugging