I do agree that the term "safe" shouldn't be used as a shorthand for "memory-safe". Memory safety is only a subset of correctness, and "safe" in my ears sounds misleadingly like a stronger promise. (And the "unsafe" keyword does not necessarily mean memory-unsafe, but simply unchecked.) There's no real harm in this, but I'm a fairly sensitive person and can't help but feel slightly shamed even when I have a case that legitimately requires the use of unsafe Rust, which can be mildly frustrating. That's something that I need to get over, though; I don't think Rust should change.

To be clear, I really like Rust (oh, that I could never write C++ again). There are some astonishingly underdeveloped parts here and there [1], and I've a few pet peeves, but it's fun to use and I think it's a great step in the right direction. I'm really grateful to all the people who work on it.

[1] I just ran into https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55795, for example.