It is like someone arguing that since they always bump the head somehow while wearing seatbelts, then they are only a nuisance and should not be used.
// src\lib.rs
#![forbid(unsafe_code)]If we're using analogies, `unsafe` is like a "hard hat required" sign. There's nothing intrinsically different about the space inside or outside of it, other than that you can't be sure a brick isn't going to fall on your head once you cross over. So it's on you to wear a hard hat. And to not drop any bricks and trust other people to do their best not to drop any bricks.
You wouldn't call that an escape hatch.
Freakin' safety. I like doing lots of unsafe things in life: rock climbing without gear (short bouldering sections on hiking trails), bicycling and skateboarding without a helmet, etc. I developed pretty good skills in all these things, and programming C too. What kind of life would be worth living with enforced perfect safety? Without developing skill in life's many un-safe activities?
So people want to emphasize that, if they shouldn't use non-Rust languages because their safety can't be guaranteed, well your safety using Rust isn't absolute, either. So you can't tell me I must use Rust, or the Rust rewrite of my favorite tools, to "be safe".
Do you recall the early rust web framework, that used a lot of "unsafe" "inappropriately" and had some vulnerabilities ... actix web? ... reminds me of the bun-in-zig situation, kinda makes the language's PR situation more complicated and tricky.
Interesting perspective that you have.
Yes, those unsafe blocks should be cross checked, but lets not pretend it is the same as writing C or C++ where each line of code is a possible CVE.