That's a very narrow way of looking at things. ATS has a much stronger "deterministic safety net" than Rust, yet the reason to use Rust over ATS is that "fighting the compiler" is easier in Rust than in ATS. On the other hand, if any cost is worth whatever level of safety Rust offers for any project, than Rust wouldn't exist because there are far more popular languages with equal (or better) safety. So Rust's design itself is an admission that 1. more compile-time safety is always better, even if it complicates the language (or everyone who uses Rust should use ATS), and 2. any cost is worth paying for safety (or Rust wouldn't exist in the first place).

Safety has some value that isn't infinite, and a cost that isn't zero. There are also different kinds of safety with different value and different costs. For example, spatial memory safety appears to have more value than temporal safety (https://cwe.mitre.org/top25/archive/2025/2025_cwe_top25.html) and Zig offers spatial safety. The question is always what you're paying and what you're getting in return. There doesn't appear to be a universal right answer. For some projects it may be worth it to pay for more safety, and for other it may be better to pay for something else.

The fact that Zig doesn't have Rust's guarantees doesn't mean Zig does not have safety checks. The safety checks that Zig does have are different, and are different in a way that's uniquely useful for this particular project.

Zig's check absolutely don't go to the extent that Rust's do, which is kind of the point here. If you do need to go beyond safe code in Rust, Zig is safer than unsafe code in Rust.

Saying Zig lacks safety checks is unfortunate, although I wouldn't presume you meant it literally and just wanted to highlight the difference.