You can 100% leak memory in pretty much every language though: just use a bad caching/memoisation strategy, and you'll have memory leaks for days. Leaking memory isn't in of itself a problem, and it can be a very valid strategy for short-lived programs where you can rely on the OS to do the ultimate garbage collection run anyway. It's only a problem in the sense that uncontrolled memory acquisition will inevitably lead to the system running out of memory to acquire, but that's also true if you're accumulating memory for perfectly legitimate reasons.

Yes, you're right. However, it's much harder than in other languages, and the likelihood of doing so therefore is lower. I can also leak memory in GC languages too, just to note.

The difference is that it's fairly easy to prevent unsafe code from occurring: a "forbid(unsafe_code)" directive prevents unsafe code from even being accepted by the compiler. In C++ there is no equivalent - good linting can prevent some obvious errors, but a lot of valid code is inherently unsafe (in the Rust sense) if used incorrectly or under the wrong assumptions.

It's also worth pointing out that most GC languages can have the same issues as a Rust program (if not more) just by virtue of having FFI. In Python, I can quite happily load a C extension and ignore all the rules. Whereas in Rust, if I want to use a C library, I still need to explicitly declare it as unsafe code.

In practice, I tend to find that I have to think more about how I approach parallel/multi-threaded code in Rust than I do in other languages - not because it's dangerous, but because the compiler doesn't allow code that would break memory safety guarantees. In some ways, that's obviously a bad thing if I'm having to think more, but in my experience, the thoughts often lead to a better design anyway. So in the end, I'm more confident in my Rust code than I am in equivalent code in a GC language.

> "Can" is the whole thing. A rust dev risking can is like a C++ dev risking can.

They're not the same because how C++ does memory safety and how Rust does it is unequivocal. C++ is unsafe by default, Rust is not, and you are ensured it is not, as I mentioned, via things like the borrow checker. To equivocate them is to fall into the same trap you yourself mention.

There are no GC vs non-GC spaces. The point of Rust is to be able to have memory safety without a garbage collector, that's literally why it was made. Thus, it is expected based on that premise that we be able to use Rust wherever a GC could be used. The fact that unsafe exists does matter, as long as unsafe isn't used. I too can turn a GC language like Java into an unsafe monstrosity, by for example doing raw bytecode tinkering, does that mean that Java is now unsafe? No, unsafe is merely an escape hatch.