> "Can" is the whole thing. A rust dev risking can is like a C++ dev risking can.
They're not the same because how C++ does memory safety and how Rust does it is unequivocal. C++ is unsafe by default, Rust is not, and you are ensured it is not, as I mentioned, via things like the borrow checker. To equivocate them is to fall into the same trap you yourself mention.
There are no GC vs non-GC spaces. The point of Rust is to be able to have memory safety without a garbage collector, that's literally why it was made. Thus, it is expected based on that premise that we be able to use Rust wherever a GC could be used. The fact that unsafe exists does matter, as long as unsafe isn't used. I too can turn a GC language like Java into an unsafe monstrosity, by for example doing raw bytecode tinkering, does that mean that Java is now unsafe? No, unsafe is merely an escape hatch.
They're not the same because how C++ does memory safety and how Rust does it is unequivocal. C++ is unsafe by default, Rust is not, and you are ensured it is not, as I mentioned, via things like the borrow checker. To equivocate them is to fall into the same trap you yourself mention.
There are no GC vs non-GC spaces. The point of Rust is to be able to have memory safety without a garbage collector, that's literally why it was made. Thus, it is expected based on that premise that we be able to use Rust wherever a GC could be used. The fact that unsafe exists does matter, as long as unsafe isn't used. I too can turn a GC language like Java into an unsafe monstrosity, by for example doing raw bytecode tinkering, does that mean that Java is now unsafe? No, unsafe is merely an escape hatch.