Safety is a spectrum - C is less safe than C++, which is less safe than Zig, which is less safe than Rust, which is less safe than Java, which is less safe than Python. Undefined behavior and memory corruption are still possible in all of them, it's just a question of how easy it is to make it happen.
Java and Python both have access to unsafe operations (via sun.misc.unsafe/ctypes) but Java is multithreaded, which requires extra care, whereas Python is not.
Rust won't let you do the wrong thing here (except if you explicitly opt-in to with `unsafe` as you note is also possible in other languages). The Rust compiler, when writing normal Rust code will prevent you from compiling code that uses memory incorrectly.
You can then solve the problem by figuring out how you're using the memory incorrectly, or you could just skip out on it by calling `.clone()` all over the place or wrapping your value in `Rc<T>` if it's for single-threaded code, or `Arc<Mutex<T>>` for multi-threaded code, and have it effectively garbage-collected for you.
In any case, this is orthogonal to safety. Rust gives you better safety than Python and Java, but at the cost of a more complex language in order to also give you the option of high performance. If you just want safety and easy memory management, you could use one of the ML variants for that.
> Rust won't let you do the wrong thing here (except if you explicitly opt-in to with `unsafe`
There is no "except if you" in this context. I'm talking about unsafe Rust, specifically. I'm not talking about safe Rust at all. Safe Rust is a very safe language, and equivalent in memory safety to safe Java and safe Python. So if that's your argument, you've missed the point entirely.
> In any case, this is orthogonal to safety.
No, it's not orthogonal - memory safety is exactly what I'm talking about. If you're talking about some other kind of safety, like null safety or something, you've again missed the point entirely.
> ... calling `.clone()` all over the place or wrapping your value in `Rc<T>` if it's for single-threaded code, or `Arc<Mutex<T>>` ...
This whole paragraph is assuming the use of safe abstractions. If you're arguing that safe abstractions are safe, then, well... I agree with you. But I'm talking about raw pointers, so you're missing the point here.
Btw, Python also has unsafe APIs[1, 2, 3, 4] so this doesn't even differentiate these two languages from each other. Some of them are directly related to memory safety, and you don't even get an `unsafe` block to warn you to tread lightly while you're using them. Perhaps we should elevate Rust above Java and Python because of that?
[1]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/gc.html#gc.get_referrers
[2]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/ctypes.html
And now you're linking me docs talking about things I already explicitly mentioned in my past comments.
You are so confidently ignoring my arguments, and so fundamentally misunderstanding basic concepts, that this discussion has really just become exhausting. I hope you have a nice day but I won't be replying further.
Actually Rust is safer because its unsafe features must be surrounded by ‘unsafe’ keyword which is easy to look for, but you can’t say that about Java and Python.
You can do unsafe stuff using stdlib in either language, sure. But by this standard, literally any language with FFI is "not any less safe" than C. Which is very technically correct, but it's not a particularly useful definition.
As far as translation of Java or Python to safe Rust, sure, if you avoid borrow checking through the usual tricks (using indices instead of pointers etc), you can certainly do so in safe Rust. In the same vein, you can translate any portable C code, no matter how unsafe, to Java or Python by mapping memory to a single large array and pointers to indices into that array (see also: wasm). But I don't think many people would accept this as a reasonable argument that Java and C are the same when it comes to memory safety.
Much harder to write Rust than Python, but definitely safer.
(Rust vs Java is much closer, but Java's nullable types by default and errors that are `throw`n not needing to be part of the signature of the function lead to runtime errors that Rust doesn't have, as well.)
You can absolutely opt-out of lifetime management in Rust. It's not usually talked about because you sacrifice performance to do it and many in the Rust community want to explicitly push Rust in the niches that C and C++ currently occupy, so to be competitive the developer does have to worry about lifetimes.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with Rust's safety, and the fact that Rust refuses to compile if you don't provide it a proper solution there means it's at least as safe as Python and Java on the memory front (really, it is more as I have already stated). Just because it's more annoying to write doesn't affect it's safety; they are orthogonal dimensions to measure a language by.
If your goal is to ship to most users something that kind of works then there are certainly complex solutions that will do that.. If your goal is memory safety that's more like every device working as expected which is done with less bloat not more.