[tialaramex]

> We will see how this turns out in the long run though.

Rust 1.0 was in 2015. This is the long run. And I disagree that safety culture is a "weak argument". It's foundational, this is where you must start, adding it afterwards is a Herculean task, so no surprise that people aren't really trying.

[uecker]

I am not saying that safety culture is irrelevant, not at all. I am saying that if the advantage of Rust is the culture that emphasizes safety (or rather memory safety, if the Rust community cared about safety in general cargo would not exist in this form) then that is a weak argument.

I don't think 10 years ago there was a lot of Rust used, so I am not sure how relevant it is that 1.0 was released at this time.

[vlovich123]

The culture of Rust is pretty uniform both in terms of convention (lots of good examples to learn from) and automated tooling (eg cargo clippy can fix many constructs into cleaner versions).

But sure, ultimately any code you see is limited by the talent of the author. However the safety of that code is not - it’s limited by how many unsafe blocks they wrote which you can actually grep for.

[uecker]

This is a naive and dangerous view of "unsafe". The safety of surrounding code depends on the unsafe blocks not violating invariants of safe Rust, and the safety of "unsafe" blocks may rely on assumptions about the safe part. Also it relates only to memory safety, so if your code review is to grep for "unsafe" blocks you are doing it wrong anyway.