I know; I've been using them for over 20 years.
If you're that confident in your knowledge here, then using Rust wouldn't be a problem for you: you can go the unsafe route and just do the same thing you'd do in C.
> doesn't match my experience.
Sure. Your experience hasn't been in Rust. That is, when you have generics, and a good package manager, there's virtually no reason to write your own, as you can always use one that already exists. C doesn't have those things, and so you end up doing a lot more work yourself compared to Rust.
That's what I didn't understand - why the author didn't just use "unsafe". There's nothing intrinsically bad about using "unsafe", you just have to test that code thoroughly. There's plenty of robust C code out there.
I feel that saying ohh you should never need to write your own pointer chain (linked list, trees etc) is a bit too sweeping and doesn't match my experience.
"not particularly relevant to most Rust programmers" begs the question is their less of an overlap from C programmers and Rust programmers than is being generally touted?