> My main point is that safety rests upon the library correctness. And I can see the value of the interlocks this provides. However it is not infallible as the

> My main point is that safety rests upon the library correctness. And I can see the value of the interlocks this provides. However it is not infallible as the word safe suggests. I don't disagree with that. Sometimes I don't totally love how the Rust people market the language, and I can see how the statements they make about safety could rub their target audience the wrong way, but I don't know how I'd do it better. I really do think the language does a great job helping programmers write fast, safe, bug-free code... once they get over the learning curve. If you ever feel like taking another crack at it, this is the reference that made the memory model stuff (which is the trickiest bit IMO) click for me: http://cglab.ca/~abeinges/blah/too-many-lists/book/ http://cglab.ca/~abeinges/blah/too-many-lists/book/