> No need for the “unsafe” keyword unless something is known to be less safe than normal C++.

> For a Rustacean, this is controversial - all C++ is unsafe!

Isn't this just a fundamental misunderstanding of what unsafe really means, and as such a nonsense goal that doesn't gain anything?

Unsafe is a Rust language definition, and defines whether the rust compiler can vouch for the safety of some code. As such, calling to a library in some other language will always be unsafe, by definition, because the Rust language cannot vouch for it.

If it makes you feel better, replace "unsafe" in your head (or with a macro) with "rustc_cannot_vouch_for" and carry on with your day. It means the same thing, and isn't really telling you that your C++ code sucks even if it looks like it at first glance, so who cares?

If you really want to reduce the unsafe keyword from being seen in most regular code, you create and interface that maps the C++ function and exposes it as a rust function, and you've hidden away your unsafe usage to one spot per function. If you have enough confidence in your C++ code, there's no downside to this (and if you don't, then maybe you shouldn't be complaining that unsafe is unneeded).

Isn't that what they did? Through the use of https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx

Agreed the article expressed the concern in a rather clumsy manner, but they seem to have a point for their particular use case, and they addressed it appropriately.