> I am saying you can find a GC language that gives all the safety (and technically more) of rust.
Giving "all the safety" is theoretically possible, but "technically more" is not. And even if you did have "all the safety", you'd still have the big performance disadvantage with a GC language.
> My quote of “future unsafety” is that even if your code currently uses only safe rust, their will always be the chance someone adds unsafe rust, increasing the safety issues.
No there won't. This is what #![forbid(unsafe_code)] is for.
Giving "all the safety" is theoretically possible, but "technically more" is not. And even if you did have "all the safety", you'd still have the big performance disadvantage with a GC language.
> My quote of “future unsafety” is that even if your code currently uses only safe rust, their will always be the chance someone adds unsafe rust, increasing the safety issues.
No there won't. This is what #![forbid(unsafe_code)] is for.