> If you need to rely on unsafe in a memory-safe language for performance reasons, then there is a issue with the language compiler at that point, that needs to

> If you need to rely on unsafe in a memory-safe language for performance reasons, then there is a issue with the language compiler at that point, that needs to be fixed. Simple as that. It actually means "Rust needs to interface with many other systems that are not as stringent as it". Your interpretation has nothing to do with what's actually going on and I am surprised you misinterpreted the situation as hugely as you did. ...And even if everything was written in Rust, `unsafe` would still be needed because the lower you get [to the kernel] you get more and more non-determinism at places. This "all or nothing" attitude is boring and tiring. We all wish things were super simple, black and white, and all-or-nothing. They are not.