True, but "prevents all bugs" is that what the debate pretty much digests to in the "rust is better" debate. So you end up with rewrites of code which introduce errors any programmer in any language can make and since you do a full rewrite that WILL happen no matter what you do.
If that's acceptable fine, otherwise not. But you cannot hide from it.
Memory-related bugs is, like, 70% of bugs found in programs written in C and C++.
So, by rewriting in Rust, you prevent 70% of new bugs from happening, because a whole class of bugs just cease to exist.
1. Unsafe doesn't mean the code is actually unsafe. It only tells you that the compiler itself cannot guarantee the correctness of it.
2. Unsafetiness tells the code reviewers to give a specific section of code more scrunity. Clippy also has an option that requires the programmer to put a comment to explain how the unsafe code is actually safe in the context.
3. And IF a bug does occur, it minimizes the amount of code you need to audit.
These are command line utilities meant to be a human porcelain for libc. And last I checked, libc was C.
Ideally these should be developed in tandem, and so should the kernel. This is not the case in Linux for historical reasons, but some of the other utilities such as iputils and netfilter are. The kernel should be Rust long before these porcelain parts are.