If you can consistently do that, then it IS the correct thing to do.

uv made that choice and users use them, is there an objective truth of what is “correct” to do version parsing?

Also you are doing tech, be specific, what is much shallower or hollow?

Yes, Rust is not new in term of allow building hard to misuse abstraction, it’s just allow abstraction over memory safety without relying on GC or runtime checks. Rust achieve this by adding capability to enforce shared XOR mutability with its borrowck which C++ couldn’t.

The point coming back to abstraction and responsibility, in Rust, you can build abstraction that is sound and guarantee memory safety from there. There can be soundness bug inside your abstraction, but it will be a massively smaller surface for auditing and expert required to write such abstraction. Also, when soundness bug appears, the responsibility is solely on the abstraction writer, not the user.

Whereas in C, without those safe abstraction, the surface of doing thing right to avoid memory safety issue is your entire codebase, and responsibility of "holding the knife correctly" is on the user.

This is the wrong understanding of Rust's unsafety encapsulation. For example, no logic bug outside of `unsafe` can cause undefined behavior of Rust std's `Vec` abstraction, which is using underlying unsafe to build.

The point that "because unsafe is used so the entire Rust program is also unsafe" is a real major myth. It's as absurd as saying "because Java runtime using unsafe underlying to build so Java is also unsafe".

C++ can have UB, compilable non-unsafe Rust can’t, that’s what static analysis of memory safety is.

Main point here is you don’t know (and refuse to learn) new knowledge.