You’re making an assumption based on zero information in a very favorable to zig way. When you have no information it’s best to rely on good priors grounded in

You’re making an assumption based on zero information in a very favorable to zig way. When you have no information it’s best to rely on good priors grounded in what you do know. zig as a language not distinguishing between safe and unsafe. Zig does not forbid unsafe. Zig’s safety model is conceptually not too different from running with ASAN for C/C++ during development. Given that’s already a followed “best practice” for the data that was used to come up with the vulnerability estimate per MLoC for C and C++ it’s reasonable to assume zig is closer to that side (at scale) than to Rust. You could argue defer as a keyword is worth a 10x improvement but even then im not sure how considering c and c++ are close and c++ does essentially a similar thing