Rather it's about a robust type system that gives you tooling to cover many cases at compile time.
Even if we ignore logic, Rust has plenty of runtime tooling and runtime issues can still happen as a result. A complaint i often have about Bevy (despite loving it!) is that it has a lot of runtime based plugins/etc which i'd prefer to be compile time. Axum for example has a really good UX while still being heavily compile time (in my experience at least).
"If it compiles it works" is still true despite my complaints. Because i don't believe the statement even remotely implies you can't write bad logic or bad runtime code in Rust.
At best it's ignorant of what that phrase means, in my view.
Rather that we have many tools to write a program that can be written with many compile time checks. For example many representations of state can be describe in compile time checks via enums, type transitions, etc.
That's exactly what that phrase means, you're twisting the actual words in the phrase to be able to arrive at something more acceptable in your own mind. All you're saying is "oh you shouldn't take it literally". I can guarantee most people take that literally and it's bullshit.
Unsafe, Panic and Error would like a word.
That's not how I've seen it used every that I have seen it used.
> At best it's ignorant of what that phrase means, in my view.
I think your opinion on what the phrase means is a minority opinion.
Besides, it likely is very possible to write programs that cannot fail in Rust. This usually means encoding state into the type system (enums included), but few go through that work. They know what corners they're cutting. Further proving that they know their program can fail.
Hell, Rust itself can fail. I struggle to imagine how this is perceived as some long-con from the Rust PR team to convince people Rust programs cannot be written with incorrect logic.