> speaking of which, according to another C++ talk, something like 60% of rust crates are dependent on unsafe rust.

It's probably not the source of the stats you had in mind since it's discussing something slightly different, but the Rust Foundation built a tool called Painter [0] for this kind of analysis. According to that [1]:

> As of May 2024, there are about 145,000 crates; of which, approximately 127,000 contain significant code. Of those 127,000 crates, 24,362 make use of the unsafe keyword, which is 19.11% of all crates. And 34.35% make a direct function call into another crate that uses the unsafe keyword. Nearly 20% of all crates have at least one instance of the unsafe keyword, a non-trivial number.

> Most of these Unsafe Rust uses are calls into existing third-party non-Rust language code or libraries, such as C or C++.

To be honest, I would have expected that 60% number to be higher if it were counting unsafe anywhere due to unsafe in the stdlib for vocabulary types and for (presumably) common operations like iterator chains. There's also a whole other argument that the hardware is unsafe so all Rust code will depend on unsafe somewhere or another to run on actual hardware, but that's probably getting a bit into the weeds.

[0]: https://github.com/rustfoundation/painter

[1]: https://rustfoundation.org/media/unsafe-rust-in-the-wild-not...

Memory allocation is unsafe, so any container in the stdlib end up using unsafe at some point. This does not mean that safe Rust is useless without unsafe - the utility of Rust is that it allows one to create sage interfaces around an unsafe construct.

Right, I totally agree. I suppose I was kind of trying to express a bit of confusion at the 60% number due to the lack of specifics of what it encompasses (e.g., how far down the dependency chain is that number looking?), unlike the stats I quoted.

> there's also a whole other argument that the hardware is unsafe so all Rust code will depend on unsafe somewhere or another to run on actual hardware, but that's probably getting a bit into the weeds.

That's not going into the weeds, by that logic (Nirvana fallacy) no language is safe, you're going to die, so why bother about anything? Just lie down and wait for bugs to eat you.

Perhaps I got the quip wrong. I was basically trying to reference discussions I've seen elsewhere along the lines of "Rust is not actually memory-safe because it needs unsafe", sometimes followed by the argument you outlined. Those discussions can get a bit involved and I don't think this is a good time/place for them, so I more or less just wanted to reference it without spending much time/words on actually delving into it.

There has been talk of new language frontends for C++:

Cpp2 (Herb Sutter's brainchild): https://hsutter.github.io/cppfront/

Carbon (from Google): https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang

In principle those could enable a safe subset by default, which would (except when explicitly opted-out) provide similar safety guarantees to Rust, at least at the language level. It's still up to the community to design safe APIs around those features, even if the languages exist. Rust has a massive advantage here that the community built the ecosystem with safety in mind from day 1, so it's not just the language that's safe, but the APIs of various libraries are often designed in an abuse-resistant way. C++ is too much of a zoo to ever do that in a coherent way. And even if you wanted to, the "safe" variants are still in their infancy, so the foundations aren't there yet to build upon.

I don't know what chance Cpp2 or Carbon have, but I think you need something as radical as one of these options to ever stand a chance of meaningfully making C++ safer. Whether they'll take off (and before Rust eats the world) is anyone's guess.

I don't think Carbon is a C++ frontend like cppfront. My impression is that cppfront supports C++ interop by transpiling/compiling to C++, but Carbon compiles straight to LLVM and supports C++ interop through built-in language mechanisms.