> Most of these Unsafe Rust uses are calls into existing third-party non-Rust language code or libraries

This is very different than

> in the name of speed, efficiency, etc

And also does not demonstrate that

> the end result being a program which isn't much more secure than its C++ equivalent.

At all.

> The biggest irony IMO is that the security features of Rust are so often skirted in the name of speed, efficiency, etc, with the end result being a program which isn't much more secure than its C++ equivalent.

Citation needed. The empiric evidence I’ve seen has shown the opposite.

Rust also started with it as a library, as try!, before ?. There were reasons why it was worth making syntax, after years of experience with it as a macro.

You only need 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

> Text after a blank line that is indented by two or more spaces is reproduced verbatim. (This is intended for code.)

Sudo has had bugs filed and fixed that were found by sudo-rs.

It’s not that simple.