[tptacek]

"Memory corruption vulnerabilities" != "concurrency bugs" or even data corruption. The last thread I was in about this, someone pointed to Go segfaults and said "see! memory corruption!" (obviously: no).

An easy response to claims like this: there's a huge tower of software written Go at this point, including the entire K8s ecosystem. Show me the memory corruption exploits.

[benjiro]

The amount of Rust code using unsafe is a major issues for a language build around safety. And yes, the same argument can also be made about Go having a unsafe keyword.

The fact that there exist crates to detected the usage of unsafe in dependencies, shows that its a rather liberal used keyword. Geiger comes to mind.

Unsafe in a language like Go is very rare, mostly because people do not program at such low system level to get the max performance out of it.

Rust code with unsafe: 1.7M Go code with unsafe: 400k

and for comparison, Go has about 2.3x the amount of repo's. So Rust has about a 10x more usage of the unsafe keyword.

[vacuity]

While unsafe is always a risk in Rust, measuring the risk is not nearly as straightforward as counting lines of code. In particular, Rust focuses on encapsulating unsafe code behind safe wrappers that prevent misuse, so the better measure is determining which crates don't do this, and to what extent they can be easily patched to do so.

[tptacek]

It's got really not much at all to do with `unsafe`.