Many people try to twist the fact memory safe languages have unsafe code blocks to make the pivot that why bother.

It is like someone arguing that since they always bump the head somehow while wearing seatbelts, then they are only a nuisance and should not be used.

▲ tadfisher 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Because they view "unsafe" as an escape hatch instead of a feature. It's a way to encapsulate dangerous behavior, tightly, with clear postcondiitions. Sometimes it's the only way to do things like interact with inherently unsafe FFI code, or hardware.

	▲	MaulingMonkey 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I adore unsafe, appreciate it as a feature... but it is an escape hatch. One that is sometimes necessary, one that is sometimes not necessary but might still be (ab)used for performance, or initial 1:1 porting of C/C++ code. There are a lot of cases where that escape hatch should probably welded shut though. Fortunately, the Rust ecosystem has tools like `cargo geiger`, and straight out of the box I can also write: `// src\lib.rs #![forbid(unsafe_code)]`