> I'm glad you agree that unsafe code in the standard Rust library is fine. I don't. I have no doubts in Vec class because it's used a lot, not because it's in

> I'm glad you agree that unsafe code in the standard Rust library is fine. I don't. I have no doubts in Vec class because it's used a lot, not because it's in the library. I'm pretty sure the standard library also has that long tail of barely tested unsafe code. I've recently looked at sources of stdsimd crate, it has hundreds of unsafe functions doing transmute. I code SIMD intrinsics a lot in C++ and I know they're probably OK. Apparently, wasn't even for pointer math, the only goal of unsafe was to workaround a language limitation (they're pure functions without side effects) > A malicious dependency is a serious issue I never found any, but I found bugs in my dependencies many times. Not fun either. > memory safety problems are incredibly rare in Rust programs compared to those in C++ programs I agree, quite expectable. BC works two ways, it checks ownership at compile time, also raises entry barrier. Both help with memory safety. The observations don't tell which effect contributes more.