Again, that sounds more limited or narrow than what people are actually building in safe Rust. The ecosystem has piles of software that would've been in C. Like

Again, that sounds more limited or narrow than what people are actually building in safe Rust. The ecosystem has piles of software that would've been in C. Likewise, that it cant handle a few primitives doesnt matter if I can prove them separately using a VCC-like tool for a subset of unsafe Rust, one that generates Rust, or one that does assembly. That these situations are fairly uncommon is suggested from fact that people always bring up the same examples which C does no better on by itself. Whereas, all the rest of the code outside those components will be safer and more maintainable than C. So, it beats it on a number of dimensions at language level despite remaining unsafety. Whereas, if we count tooling, C is still safer than Rust given there's more verification tools available plus certifying compilers. You have to use many of them with a subset of C easy to analyze, though.