[Ygg2]

> The entire point is that being so absolutist is silly.

You're misinterpreting what Rust people are telling you.

- Rust is safe lang

- Nah, C is safe if you're good

- Rust evangelical gestures towards billions or CVEs brought on by overly-sure C programmers

- Yeah, well, a version of Rust was unsafe for few months ten years ago. Besides Zig prevents more bugs than C and is the successor

- Rust person points to Bun's abysmal record

- Stop being absolutist.

The issue is that in C or Zig few people can write mostly UB free code. In Rust anyone can write UB free code as long as they don't reach for unsafe.

[jmull]

It seems odd to me to put this much effort into misunderstanding what people are saying. You just end up talking past everyone, essentially talking to no one about nothing.

[Ygg2]

If it wasn't obvious from my ramble, Rust concerns are pragmatic, not absolutist. The only absolutism is that for memory safety to be truly upheld, you can't half-ass it (Zig) or ignore it (C).

Some properties are like that.