>>100049334lol no
here is a trivial memory unsafe "modern c++" program:
https://godbolt.org/z/drob1nsY1>>100049357visual studio and llvm sanitizers werks for me, i dont need much more (package managers are stupid)
>>100049495on the contrary, rust is exactly for those cases. you encapsulate all your unsafe abstractions in a few files that can be easily and thoroughly audited and then you build memory safe code on top of them.
you shouldn't use rust when the excessive friction outweighs the benefits, which is why it's bad for programming software with changing requirements that requires constant iteration. in that case, you should use c/c++ if it's performance critical and managed languages otherwise.
