I read your link, written by Bun's author and totally get his thinking.

In the current world of cyber weaknesses everywhere, infrastructure must be solid and rust is a better choice than zig for something like bun.

In other words, bun is not a demo of zig programming that happens to do useful things. Bun does useful things, and must do them securely. That is its number one priority, language is secondary, inasmuch as it helps doing useful things securely.

Are you really "doing things securely" when you use as many unsafe blocks as the Rust port of Bun does?

I don't think you can claim your code is secure, or can claim anything at all about your code, if you haven't written the code and have no idea what's in there.

Rust protects against a rather small group of memory error, if and only if the unsafe sections are actually correct. And nobody knows if they are correct or not, plus there can be millions of logical errors that can be exploited.

See how many CVEs uutils has… quite a lot for a supposedly secure rewrite of GNU coreutils.