I understand the "unsafe" construct on the technical level, but thanks for clarification nevertheless.
My point was that, with "unsafe", Rust provides a technical construct which allows to carry over some negative development styles, possible in the C(++) world, without friction (if wanted). And from the list I linked, there seems to be a lot of momentum for this kind of behaviour in certain industries.
You'd have to actually re-write it with unsafe constructs in the first place.
So it stays the way it is, i.e. I can't buy the "possible fail places are easily grepable" argument.
Re:Rust After the Honeymoon
by steveklabnik on Monday October 12, 2020 @09:38AM
(#24754203)
Yes, in theory that could happen. In practice, we don’t see it happening. Doesn’t mean it can’t, but time will tell.
In some sense, it doesn't. But in another sense, you can't just throw unsafe around things. Unsafe doesn't turn off checks. Unsafe adds new unchecked constructs. This means you can't have written a bunch of code, run into errors, and just toss unsafe {} around it. You'd have to actually re-write it with unsafe constructs in the first place.
You can very much do that, if you want. But it's not a trivial escape hatch.