Sometimes, yes, using a mutex makes more sense -- and that does introduce the possibility of a data race.
If you follow effective Go code -- I imagine the code is on average about just as safe as Rust code is. It is partially comparable to using `unsafe` blocks in Rust -- don't do it, unless you know what you're doing. Stick with channels.
That said, channels in Rust are also nice to use, and you shouldn't not choose channels. Rust just enables other use-cases too.
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not complaining about Go. Just know that sometimes, there are real reasons to share memory. And when you do: Rust has got your back, but in Go you're on your own.
Rust transfers ownership when you send a single-owner reference over a channel. The sender can no longer access the referenced object; the compiler prevents that. That's the safe way to do it. This is a significant advance in multi-thread programming. The rules that make this work are strikingly simple. Somebody should have thought of this 20 or 30 years ago, but as far as I know, nobody did. Rust pushes the single-owner model hard, and it seems to work. The C++ crowd beat their head against the wall on this for decades, through three generations of auto_ptr, then unique_ptr. Really getting it right requires something like the Rust borrow checker, which C++ does not have.
Go does not do anything to prevent sharing data between threads. It's very easy in Go to unwittingly create shared data, because slices are references. After you've sent a reference, the sender still has access to the shared data, as does the receiver, so there's a potential race condition. Go does nothing to prevent this. There's a lot of dancing around this issue in "(In)effective Go", and long discussions of "is this a race condition" in Go forums. Go is a useful language, but it's in spite of Go's concurrency system, not because of it.
The same claim can be made for C++ (with uniqe_ptr<T>), but we know how that faired. It is telling enough that there is a race detector tool for Go.
std::unique_ptr<int> p(new int(1));
std::unique_ptr<int> q = p;
You can strong arm it into break but you can also reuse a pointer locally in Go after it was sent over a channel.
#include <iostream>
auto f() {
int x = 1;
return [&] () { return x; };
}
int main(int, char **) {
std::cout << f()() << std::endl;
}
If you want something particularly involving unique_ptr, consider that best practices are to give non-owning sharing as raw pointers: you could say they're safe as long as you use them correctly but again that misses the point. I can also give an example (stolen from a talk) directly involving shared_ptr even when used with traditional "best practices" although I'm sure the best practices will update themselves to include this.
In some sense, Rust has been described as merely formalizing and automatically enforcing the best practices that people were already using in C++; it's the formality and automaticity that turns it from a dangerous language to a safe one.