Wins are often incremental. It's much better to start with the potential of guaranteed safety, sidestepped by a manual (opt-in) sacrifice of it in favor of gett

Wins are often incremental. It's much better to start with the potential of guaranteed safety, sidestepped by a manual (opt-in) sacrifice of it in favor of getting something working, and slowly chipping away at the unsafety over time; than to start with the dispensation of safety as an institution altogether (C/C++) and hope that someday you can work your way to safety. Put another way, as a developer, I'd much rather be part of a project using a language that is safe by default, which opts in to the unsafety it needs yet which hopes to someday simply remove all the `unsafe` keywords, than one that hopes to stumble its way to safety through relentless trial and error, testing, bug reports, debugging, etc. and has no actual measure of its level of safety. On top of that, if you only use, say 10% of one of those libraries, you can easily wrap the 10% of that library in a safe fashion instead of waiting for 100% of the library to have its own safe wrapper.