I understand the "unsafe" construct on the technical level, but thanks for clarification nevertheless. My point was that, with "unsafe", Rust provides a techni

I understand the "unsafe" construct on the technical level, but thanks for clarification nevertheless. My point was that, with "unsafe", Rust provides a technical construct which allows to carry over some negative development styles, possible in the C(++) world, without friction (if wanted). And from the list I linked, there seems to be a lot of momentum for this kind of behaviour in certain industries. You'd have to actually re-write it with unsafe constructs in the first place. This is what I think would happen, and tried to describe. Someone trying to implement a feature, failing with safe mode and resorting to "unsafe" from scratch, just to get it done. So it stays the way it is, i.e. I can't buy the "possible fail places are easily grepable" argument.