I wouldn’t mind using unsafe rust for encapsulated cases where it makes sense (though this might not be the one as it could be done in safe rust).
It is just nice to have this delineation and it can simplify debugging as well.
I prefer different strategy. I use C++ for encapsulated cases where it makes sense. I compile that C++ into DLLs, and consume these DLLs from C#.
C++ is safer than unsafe Rust. C++ was designed for usability of the unsafe code because the entire ecosystem is unsafe, and have been that way for decades. By now, the tooling is pretty good.
And C# is safer than safe rust due to the VM. Rust compiles to native code. Unlike C# rust requires unsafe to implement any non-trivial data structures.
Not really, that’s just my impression reading stuff about unsafe rust, and programming C++.
> wouldn’t your comparison need you to take into account unsafe constructs used to implement the C# VM?
Rust compiler depends on LLVM written in C++, kernels for all mainstream OSes are written in C.
The probability of bugs in my code I just written is orders of magnitude higher than probability of bugs in these third-party systems.
> Rust compiler depends on LLVM written in C++, kernels for all mainstream OSes are written in C.
But this general criticism is just as valid for C# which you say is safer, isn't it? 18.6% of the C# runtime is written in C or C++[1] and you run the runtime on an OS that's largely written in C or C++.
