> unwrap() and the family of methods like it are a Rust anti-pattern from the early days of Rust. It dates back to before many of the modern error-handling and

> unwrap() and the family of methods like it are a Rust anti-pattern from the early days of Rust. It dates back to before many of the modern error-handling and safety-conscious features of the language and type system. I think your argument would be more effective if you dropped this angle. Unwrap is assert. No more, no less. It's tremendously useful to have it in the language for situations when the cost of encoding some invariant in your program's types is far larger than the benefit you'd gain from doing so. It's not some vestigial thing from way back before anyone received enlightenment that they could use sum types to discriminate errors. It's just a different tool. I completely agree there are systems and situations where you want to be able to statically verify an absence of panics, but the way you're describing the situation sounds similar to when I hear folks describe anything that came before as "legacy" with a denigrating inflection.