> I'm bothered by the need for "unsafe" code in pure Rust that's not calling hardware or C code. Why is this bothersome? I'm curious, as to me the advantage i

> I'm bothered by the need for "unsafe" code in pure Rust that's not calling hardware or C code. Why is this bothersome? I'm curious, as to me the advantage is not in full-program safety, but in having a distinction between portions of a program that are guaranteed safe and portions that aren't. Or, to turn it another way, Rust isn't giving you guarantees about 100% of the code you're looking at: it's vouching for the >0% (hopefully!) but <100% that's marked safe. It seems an elegant, realistic engineering solution to a hard trade-off between performance and safety.