rg "unsafe " | wc -l tells me there are 19 occurences, for about 13.7k lines of Rust in total. So it's not a lot.
There was an HN discussion a few months back on a Rust program that overused the unsafe features, to the point it may as well have been written in C. Sure enough, it turned out to be full of nasty bugs.
Mildly disagree. Even if half the code base is unsafe, that's better than a code base where everything is unsafe. Now I only have to audit half the code base for crazy shit, which is about half the effort. A stronger type system means that even in unsafe land, we can still encode some invariants better.
I disagree with this notion that "if you're going to have bugs anyway, what's the point of Rust". Our goal isn't to eliminate every bug in the world, it's to have fewer bugs today than we did yesterday. Rust, even Rust with several unsafes thrown in, helps us achieve that goal.
[citation needed]. And it would be hard to find a citation because most Rust codebases don't have much unsafe. The repo you're thinking of was an anomaly and has since improved a lot.
Well, this can be related to an actual real-world concept, that is "programming in a certain language with the syntax/runtime of another".
In my experience, all the times I've seen this happening, the project was just terribly written.
I program in Rust, and if I happened to put an excessive¹ amount of unsafe code in Rust, it means that simply, I'm not programming in Rust. In my opinion, in real world this phenomenon happens for beginners, lazy programmers, or bad programmers, especially for Rust, because it has a steep learning curve, and it requires an effort, when designing a project, that other languages don't require.
So there is a point, although theoretical, that a good programmer in an unsafe language, can produce a more stable project than a bad programmer in a safe language.
With that in mind, I still wish as others to see unsafe languages disappear :-)
¹="excessive" is of course subjective.