It's interesting what this issue reveals about Rust culture. After all, you can write basic (tree-like) data structures without resorting to `unsafe`. It's no

It's interesting what this issue reveals about Rust culture. After all, you can write basic (tree-like) data structures without resorting to `unsafe`. It's not that hard: just wrap all your nodes in `Rc`, plus either `RefCell` or `Cell` if you need mutability. Yeah, this adds some overhead, but really not very much. It'll probably still run faster than equivalent code in most safe languages, often using less memory, without GC pauses. Or even if it loses to some language in some tree microbenchmark, in a real application Rust will probably make up for it with better performance elsewhere. But culturally, the baseline for comparison isn't safe languages. It's C/C++. Rust is supposed to be about zero cost abstractions, so non-zero-cost abstractions are suspect. And so people recommend raw pointers and `unsafe` - which is no less safe than C++, but still leaves newcomers with a bad taste in their mouths. To some extent this attitude is built into the language itself. `Rc<RefCell<Foo>>` is ugly; needing two nested generics, one with a rather abstruse name, for what in other languages is just `Foo`, i.e. a basic object reference, makes you feel like you're doing something wrong. In the olden days of Rust, `RefCell` was called `Mut`, and there was a type `RcMut<Foo>` which combined `Rc` and `Mut`. Much more appealing to a newbie: `Mut` is what you use to add (inner) mutability, and `RcMut` is the mutable version of `Rc`, for the common case where you need both reference counting and mutability. No need for ugly nesting. But well before 1.0, `Mut` was renamed and `RcMut` deemed unnecessary, and Rust ended up where it is today. Arguably this is a good thing, as it discourages unnecessary use of both reference counting and inner mutability, each of which comes with a runtime cost. But for newbies, I think it makes Rust look more intimidating than it needs to be.