> My objection is that I see unsafe just for memory integrity.
Either you think this way because of a sense of orthodoxy or because you think memory safety is important in a way the other kinds of safety aren't. I disagree, especially since "memory safety" may or may not imply protection against aliasing of mutable data. Those nuances I like about Rust probably wouldn't exist without the broader scope of safety concerns.
> As for voicing my objections to the Rust community,
About the discussion you linked? I meant to me, in the service of explaining your objections.
> My time is already quite filled following the JVM, .NET and C++ eco-systems, the ones I get payed to be an expert on.
Well, that was important information. Thanks for making the time to share!
Either you think this way because of a sense of orthodoxy or because you think memory safety is important in a way the other kinds of safety aren't. I disagree, especially since "memory safety" may or may not imply protection against aliasing of mutable data. Those nuances I like about Rust probably wouldn't exist without the broader scope of safety concerns.
> As for voicing my objections to the Rust community,
About the discussion you linked? I meant to me, in the service of explaining your objections.
> My time is already quite filled following the JVM, .NET and C++ eco-systems, the ones I get payed to be an expert on.
Well, that was important information. Thanks for making the time to share!