> Maybe the core is that i don't understand why you agree with it :) Because of encapsulation. I don't need to look far to see the effects of encapsulation (an

> Maybe the core is that i don't understand why you agree with it :) Because of encapsulation. I don't need to look far to see the effects of encapsulation (and abstraction) on computing. I read your whole comment, but I really want to tighten this discussion up. I think the biggest thing I'm personally missing from coming over to your view of things is examples. In particular: > Almost all libraries are littered with safe encapsulation that is utterly broken in many ways. Not like "oh if you think about this very hard it's broken". Can you show me? If it's really "almost all," then you should even be able to point to a crate I've authored with a broken safe encapsulation. `regex-automata`, `jiff`, `bstr`, `byteorder`, `memchr` and `aho-corasick` all use `unsafe`. Can you find a point of unsoundness? I don't want a library here or there. I am certain there are some libraries that are intentionally flouting Rust's norms here. So a couple of examples wouldn't be enough to convince me because I don't think a minority of people flouting Rust's norms is a big problem unless it can be shown that this minority is growing in size. What I want to see is evidence that this is both widespread and intentional. It's hard for me to believe that it is without me noticing. If you want to do this privately, you can email: jamslam@gmail.com