[pjmlp]

If you are going that way, Rust's reference compiler is dependent on LLVM, fully written in C++, and the C++ semantics of bitcode have broken Rust's code generation multiple times, forcing regressions and newer compiler releases with desactivated optimization features.

Also plenty of crates are bindings to C and C++ libraries with nice unsafe blocks.

Then was that Axium drama.

[dequan]

Hmm? Dotnet on Linux uses LLVM for codegen so that seems to be a wash. Lots of nuget packages are wrappers around native libraries as well.

[pjmlp]

Yeah, doesn't make Rust's dependency on C++ go away for its safety.

The point is the "look at what I say, not what I do", when talking about safe languages and dependencies into C and C++ libraries and compiler toolchains.

[dequan]

Which doesn't really have anything to do with GP's incorrect assertion that C# is somehow safer than Rust.

[pjmlp]

It has to do with yours incorrect assertion that using C++ in the runtime is a disadvantage for C# in regards to Rust, which equally depends on C++, in both of its compilers toolchains, rustc and gcc-rs.

When Rust gets fully bootstrapped in self hosted toolchain you'll have a point.

[dequan]

I think you've missed my point entirely but that's fine.