[mubou]

> I'm referring to the fact that the rust code panics at the slightest sign of discomfort.

That's kind of up to you as the developer though. I generally avoid writing functions that can panic -- I'd even argue any non-test code that panics is simply poorly written, because you can't "catch" a panic like you can in a high-level language. Better to return an error result and let the calling code decide how to handle it. Which often means showing an error to the user, but that's better than an unexpected crash.

[pclmulqdq]

I agree with you that error results (and exceptions) are better than panics. I will point out, though, that we're talking about language proclivities.

It is entirely up to you as the developer to write memory-safe code in C, and it's possible to do so. Most programmers don't because it's hard to do that once you're doing anything nontrivial. It's also possible to write panic-free rust, but it's hard.

[mubou]

That's fair. I do wish error handling in Rust were easier (try blocks have been in "unstable" for almost a decade). Panicking probably shouldn't have existed in the first place.