Rudra

Overall it does indeed seem to be the case for roughly 25% of Rust crates: https://rustfoundation.org/media/unsafe-rust-in-the-wild-not... https://thenewstack.io/unsafe-rust-in-the-wild/ https://github.com/sslab-gatech/Rudra/blob/master/rudra-sosp... https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/canvas-unsafe-code-in-the-... Again, not a criticism of the language itself per se, and certainly not trying to imply that all Rust programmers go around writing unsafe code all day long. It's just kind of funny to me that it is touted as being so much more safe than C++ when the reality is that at least some of those features are in fact disabled for one reason or another in real-world programs.

Not sure proves your point, but maybe doesn't disprove your point strongly enough. I am not qualified to argue from experience about how Rust is ideally suited in the ways you think it is not. But from everything I have seen, it can do a whole lot of what C++ is also good at. Rust safety is not all or nothing and a codebase could definitely prioritize ergonomics over correctness. Two things that I saw in the last couple weeks that might start to sway you. https://github.com/sslab-gatech/Rudra#readme GhostCell: Separating Permissions from Data in Rust https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIbubw86p0M Even unsafe Rust can be as ergonomic as C++. But that unsafety can be mediated, moderated and controlled.