[staticassertion]

You're swapping definitions of unsafe. Earlier you were referring to the `unsafe` keyword. Now you're using `unsafe` to refer to a property of code. This makes it easy to say things like "It is also wrong to believe 100% of the C code is basically unsafe" but you're just swapping definitions partway through the conversation.

[broken-kebab]

What I see is that antirez claims that absence of "safe" (as syntax) in C lang doesn't automatically mean that all of C code is unsafe (as property). There's no swapping of definitions as I see it.

[staticassertion]

I think there's a very clear switch of usage happening. Maybe it's hard to see so I'll try to point out exactly where it happens and how you can spot it.

First from antirez:

> You don't need much unsafe if you use Rust to replace a Python project, for instance. If there is lower level code, high performances needs, things change.

Use of the term `unsafe` here referring to the keyword / "blocks" of code. Note that this statement would be nonsensical if talking about `unsafe` as a property of code, certainly it would be inconsistent with the later unsafe since later it's claimed that C code is not inherently "unsafe" (therefor Rust would not be inherently "unsafe").

Kibwen staying on that definition here:

> For replacing a Python project with Rust, unsafe blocks will comprise 0% of your code. For replacing a C project with Rust, unsafe blocks will comprise about 5% of your code.

Here is the switch:

> A big amount of C code does not do anything unsafe as well

Complete shift to "unsafe" as being a property of code, no longer talking about the keyword or about blocks of code. You can spot it by just rewriting the sentences to use Rust instead of C.

You can say:

"A big amount of 'unsafe' Rust code does not do anything unsafe as well" "It is also wrong to believe 100% of the unsafe Rust code is basically unsafe."

I think that makes this conflation of terms clear, because we're now talking about the properties of the code within an "unsafe" block or globally in C. Note how clear it is in these sentences that the term `unsafe` is being swapped, we can see this by referring to "rust in unsafe blocks" explicitly.

This is just a change of definitions partway through the conversation.

p.s. @Dang can you remove my rate limit? It's been years, I'm a good boy now :)

[b40d-48b2-979e]

Except that's a dishonest interpretation especially for someone of antirez's experience.