I have my share of criticism of Rust. But even a safe language has to deal with unsafe memory etc. at some point in the stack. The goal is to minimize such uses of unsafe and for the cases of unsafe that exist to prove that they are safe.

These haha gotcha's are criticism leveled at language designers who never denied that there is unsafe code, that there can be bugs in unsafe code, and that such bugs can leak to safe code.

egg in the face

Is it an egg in the face when it requires LLM analysis to find these nowadays? It tells me that the Rust developers got really good at eliminating memory bugs that are lurking in unsafe code.

Also, this doesn't change anything to the benefits of Rust's ownership model, which removes classes of bugs that are very common in C/C++, so the Rust advocates were still right.

(I'll leave my rants about Rust in a thread where it's more appropriate, but they are not about memory safety.)