> C++ programs are safe under certain conditions. I entirely agree with this. My point is that these conditions are not always (and often aren't) encoded in th

> C++ programs are safe under certain conditions. I entirely agree with this. My point is that these conditions are not always (and often aren't) encoded in the C++ syntax itself, and are instead part of the documentation or some softer coding convention. As such an automatic code converter can't be aware of these details and can't decide if a call is safe or not. C++ doesn't have the concept of safety built in, it's the programmer that's in charge of keeping track of the soundness of it all. It's not enforced by the compiler like Rust does. I'm really surprised that there's so much debate around this in this thread honestly (including by people who know Rust very well). That's blindingly obvious to me that it's a very bad idea. Clearly that means that I'm missing one side of this issue.