[kibwen]

> If Rust can't handle that safely (not Rust "safe", but safely), it isn't appropriate for the job.

Rust is no less safe at C interop than using C directly.

[smj-edison]

As long as you keep C pointers as pointers. The mutable aliasing rules can bite you though.

[hirvi74]

(Not the user you were replying to)

If Rust is no less safe than C in such a regard, then what benefit is Rust providing that C could not? I am genuinely curious because OS development is not my forte. I assume the justification to implement Rust must be contingent on more than Rust just being 'newer = better', right?

[gf000]

It's not less safe in C interop. It is significantly safer at everything else.