> is a relatively experienced Rust dev choose to retype

Probably because they were an experienced dev and are experienced enough with unsafe code to write good unsafe code without worrying about it. It was a minor unsafe operation of which the validity is easily proven. Doesn't really prove that there isn't an aversion to unsafe code in the community.

I would generally put the folks who work on Redox in the bucket of "experienced people who know how to write unsafe code" and am pretty sure that they're more comfortable with writing unsafe code than most. Byteorder is a crate that handles this neatly and well (including endianness and stuff), but for ticki's purposes, really, a simple type pun on integers is not that bad. It's like the left-pad of unsafe code.

To paraphrase - "If you're experienced, the Rust community doesn't discourage it. They likely know what they're doing." :)

This sounds very similar to C or C++ developers who criticize Rust. "Experienced C / C++ developers know what they are doing. Why do we need the borrow checker. In my code, these issues Rust claims to solve haven't been an issue for a decade."

The argument seems a little hypocritical. Anyways, its not a big deal, it just seems like an easy problem to solve today, but a tedious problem to live with tomorrow. I'll stop playing devil's advocate now.

> "If you're experienced, the Rust community doesn't discourage it. They likely know what they're doing."

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I can understand why ticki just reimplemented it here; because they are experienced enough to know what they're doing, AND because this isn't a dangerous unsafe operation. The AND is important here. There are a couple of unsafe operations which are basically no big deal, and this is one of them (another is the use of unchecked indexing in some cases).

An inexperienced Rust programmer would generally still avoid unsafe like the plague and ask around before doing this. We get this often enough -- folks asking how to do lower level operations well (and often getting pointed to crates like byteorder).

An experienced Rust programmer knows that this specific operation is trivial enough to not worry that much. I know about byteorder, so I would use it in this case, but if I hadn't I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be too averse to just doing the type pun.

I'm not talking about general unsafe code here. I've seen very experienced Rust programmers ask for help in getting rid of or double-checking unsafe code. I'm talking about this specific instance, and saying that it's not in the category of unsafe code that needs to be worried about.

I disagree: this sort of operation that seems safe is some of the most deceptive code to write... there's always the risk of reading a little bit more than intended or incrementing a pointer a little too far and hitting undefined behaviour. (There is in fact a bug (or two) in the type punning `read_u64` code, fortunately just a correctness one, but the small amount of code in that function is enough to obscure it, let alone the long sequence of copy-pasted `unsafe` code that makes up the main algorithm.)

It is definitely a red flag for a function that just reads some bytes to be entirely wrapped in an unsafe block, and I don't think it makes sense to defend it while also saying that the Rust community discourages gratuitous use of `unsafe`. The whole point of Rust is the "experts know what they're doing" argument doesn't work in practice, and people shouldn't get a free pass for large amounts of seemingly undocumented and unjustified `unsafe` just because they have some prominent projects.

Fair; I guess I'm wrong here. Perhaps we should be doing something to prevent gratuitous use of unsafe code. I'm quite wary that we may overly stigmatize unsafe code this way, though (leading to people avoiding even the use of libraries like byteorder that contain unsafe code). It's a careful balance to maintain.

I can't read ticki's mind, so I can't really say why they made this decision. But I don't think you're right to suggest that this is inherently about using the path of least resistance; #2 on your list is not about that, for example.

Disagree.

Unless improving the flexibility of the existing abstraction has been explored and deemed infeasible, re-building an abstraction instead of working with the existing abstraction's owner, to improve its flexibility, is taking the path of least resistance.