Okay, but if I do this everywhere, then I de facto don't have memory safety. Why, then should I use Rust and pretend like I am getting memory safety? Why wouldn't I use a lower-friction language with a faster compiler?
It looks to me like the Rust community has this weird way of wanting to have its cake, and eat it too, about memory. Y'all want to advertise how important memory safety is, how great it is to have, and so forth. Then in cases like this, it's always "oh but you just use unsafe, it's fine". These stories are mutually inconsistent. Either you have memory safety or you don't. Paying the cost that Rust makes programmers pay for memory safety, and then not actually getting memory safety, is the worst of both worlds.
Then when you guys say I am making nonsense claims because of course you can have your cake and also eat it as long as you use the Rust programming language, well, it's just pretty weird at that point.
Then when you guys say I am making nonsense claims because of course you can have your cake and also eat it as long as you use the Rust programming language, well, it's just pretty weird at that point.