> It is nonsense to say that "libraries can have bugs so you might as well use C++". My argument is that if you assert 'rust is 100% safe' then you must assert

> It is nonsense to say that "libraries can have bugs so you might as well use C++". My argument is that if you assert 'rust is 100% safe' then you must assert, all your dependencies are bug free. If you can somehow magically assert 'all my code is bug free', that would be great... but if so, you wouldn't need the borrow checker at all would you? (I'm certainly not endorsing using C++ :P I'm specifically talking to the assertion that rust code can be safe, as per the definition of safety in the guide, that certain operations are impossible; certainly, and absolutely, rust code is safer and more trust worthy (imo) than c/c++ code... but you've got to be reasonable about what you're arguing. 'rust is magical and can never crash' turns up in blog posts a lot)