In principle I agree, but note that such projects are not created in a vacuum. Someone who goes out of their way to put that much unsafe into the codebase is more likely to commit mistakes that lead to ub than someone who just writes C stuff.
> Someone who goes out of their way to put that much unsafe into the codebase is more likely to commit mistakes that lead to ub than someone who just writes C stuff.
[citation needed]. And it would be hard to find a citation because most Rust codebases don't have much unsafe. The repo you're thinking of was an anomaly and has since improved a lot.
> I disagree with this notion that "if you're going to have bugs anyway, what's the point of Rust" [...] [citation needed]
Well, this can be related to an actual real-world concept, that is "programming in a certain language with the syntax/runtime of another".
In my experience, all the times I've seen this happening, the project was just terribly written.
I program in Rust, and if I happened to put an excessive¹ amount of unsafe code in Rust, it means that simply, I'm not programming in Rust. In my opinion, in real world this phenomenon happens for beginners, lazy programmers, or bad programmers, especially for Rust, because it has a steep learning curve, and it requires an effort, when designing a project, that other languages don't require.
So there is a point, although theoretical, that a good programmer in an unsafe language, can produce a more stable project than a bad programmer in a safe language.
With that in mind, I still wish as others to see unsafe languages disappear :-)
