[bcjdjsndon]

> No, this is completely incorrect,

Show me system level rust code that only uses safe then... You can't because its impossible. I doesn't matter that it's a minority of files (!), the simple fact is you can't program systems without using unsafe. Rewrite the c dependencies in rust and the amount of unsafe code increases massively

> Most Rust coders are not manually managing memory on the regular

Another sidestep. If coders in general cannot be trusted to manage memory, why can a rust coder be trusted all of a sudden?

> . But there are dozens of built-in warnings and Clippy lints that analyze unsafe blocks and attempts to flag issues early.

We already had that, it wasn't enough, hence..... rust, remember?

[junon]

You are missing the forest for the trees here. The goal of that's unsafe isn't to prevent you from writing unsafe code. It's to prevent you from unsafe code by accident. That was always the goal. If you reread the comments through that lens I'm sure they'll make more sense.

[alfiedotwtf]

I think you’re deliberately being obtuse here, and if you don’t see why, you should probably reflect on your reasoning.

I’ve been using Rust for about 12 years now, and the only times I’ve had to reach for `unsafe` was to do FFI stuff. That’s it. Maybe others might have more unsafe code and for good reasons, but from my perspective, I don’t know wtf you’re talking about.

[bcjdjsndon]

> Maybe others might have more unsafe code and for good reasons, but from my perspective, I don’t know wtf you’re talking about

"well I don't need to use unsafe that much so I don't know what your point is" sounds like you don't really have an answer.