> Well, kind of. I would argue that most code does not need to be thread safe because it is not intended to run in a multi-threaded environment. In that case y

> Well, kind of. I would argue that most code does not need to be thread safe because it is not intended to run in a multi-threaded environment. In that case you are actually thread safe, though! Just use a language that lets you specify which data can't be sent across threads (Rust isn't the only example, Erlang enforces this entirely dynamically) and use thread locals instead of statics (in a single threaded environment they're effectively the same thing), and tada, you have thread safety that continues to work even if people decide to run your stuff on many different cores.