[quotemstr]

Any safe system has unsafe parts. Quibbling about whether these parts are called "blocks" isn't useful. The term changes nothing.

[dundarious]

Pobody's Nerfect is not the mindset that led to Rust's innovations, nor Fil-C's.

"Blocks" are relevant as they are how you express programs, algorithms, etc., that you need in order to get something done. Lots of data structures in Rust have a little unsafe somewhere. Users will typically depend on some "specialist" crate author to write them, but it exists, and is a necessary part of practical Rust programming. The pool of unsafety is open and by necessity growing.

In Fil-C, no such specialists are needed, and the pool of unsafety is closed and fixed, no matter what programs, algorithms, data structures you use.

This is not a trivial distinction I think. I think it's easy to acknowledge, especially given its (current) performance cost.

[quotemstr]

That's a lot of words to say that the problem with Rust is that people you don't like are allowed to write unsafe code.

[dundarious]

My god, you are insufferable, that's not my opinion at all. Just because I used quotation marks in one place, a practice that can convey multiple meanings, not all of which involve disdain. It's unfortunate that Rust, a good language that has more practical use than Fil-C, a language that I use more than Fil-C, has proselytizers such as you.

[quotemstr]

Your argument is literally that there is too much unsafe code.