> You don't see this in other languages so much. People just use those languages and "they" have to fix any flaws. You absolutely do see that elsewhere, and th

> You don't see this in other languages so much. People just use those languages and "they" have to fix any flaws. You absolutely do see that elsewhere, and that's why here on HN we have a different new JS framework every day. The safety in Rust (and .NET, and Java) doesn't come from the `unsafe` keyword, it comes from the guarantees that you have when you don't use said keyword. Ownership, garbage collectors, and less undefined behaviour are some reasons why those languages are considered safer. At the end, memory safety is a spectrum, and while you can still break Rust's (or even Java's) memory model, it's much harder to do so unintentionally. That's a win. Even if there are some undefined edge cases!