If one claims otherwise, I say they have no understanding of Rust. But also, if one helds that against Rust's value promise, I, again, say that they have no understanding of Rust.
That the community is going to be significantly more dramatic than average
In a more practical sense, all software, even Python programs, ultimately call C functions that are unsafe.
It's like that saying "all abstractions are wrong, some are useful".
> what does seeing “written in rust” as a suffix make you think about a project’s qualities before you ever read the code
By itself, that tells me very little about a project. Same thing if I see a project written in Python or Go, which are nominally memory safe programming languages. I perceive a statistically significant likelihood that software written in these languages will not segfault on me, but it's no guarantee. If I see two programs with the same functionality, where one is written in Python and another one in Rust, I also have some expectation that the one written in Rust will be more performant.
But you cannot draw general conclusions from that piece of information alone.
However, as a programmer, Rust is a tool that makes it easier for me to write code that will not segfault or cause data races.
At the end of the day this isn’t a technical argument I’m trying to make, it’s a philosophical one. I think that the more we normalize eroding the core benefits the language safety features provide, one enhancement proposal at a time, one escape hatch added each year for special interfaces, the less implicit trust you can have in rust projects without reviewing them and their dependencies for correctness.
I think that trust has enormous value, and I think it would suck to lose it. (reflect: what does seeing “written in rust” as a suffix make you think about a project’s qualities before you ever read the code)