[lmm]

> If the author wanted an explanation for a technical decision, they could open an issue and have a conversation like an adult.

Opening an issue comes across as a whole lot more aggressive to me. That implies that they owe you an explanation or you want them to change their code.

> They cry about the existence of some unsafe code, but don’t actually put in the effort to figure out if it can lead to a real problem like unsoundness.

unsafe might as well be unsound. The key benefit of Rust is supposed to be better memory safety than C; if everything is using unsafe, why bother?

> Here’s a post by the maintainer of hyper about what they accomplished in 2023 and what they hope to accomplish in 2024 - https://seanmonstar.com/blog/2023-in-review/

Ok, and that doesn't mention "unsafe" once - no justification for why it's used, much less a plan to reduce or eliminate it.

[timeon]

> The key benefit of Rust is supposed to be better memory safety than C; if everything is using unsafe, why bother?

Is Hyper all contained inside unsafe block? As far as I know it is not. So even if there is some unsafe code it is not same as writing it in C.

[lmm]

Apparently even quite basic things like splitting a string are done in unsafe code. So it sounds like while it may not be 100% unsafe, most of it is.