A lot of people care: e.g. the Rustonomicon[1] spends a lot of time caring about unsafe code (that is one of the main reasons for it to exist), and the massive RustBelt project[2], which Ralf (author of the blog post) is part of, is because people care. Even the lowest level developers (working on OSes) care about being very careful about how they use `unsafe`, e.g. [3]. One thing that some of us are hopeful will come out of RustBelt are more advanced `unsafe` checkers (i.e. some sort of proof assistant, possibly with lints built into the compiler).<p>In any case, talking about &quot;order of magnitude&quot; misses the point somewhat: there might be a large amount more code, but a lot of it is trivial to verify, e.g. the declaration of a struct doesn&#x27;t need any verification, nor do comments, and if T, the type with invariants, has no internal mutability (which is fairly typical for unsafe code outside std, IME), then any safe function that takes &amp;T is automatically safe.<p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;doc.rust-lang.org&#x2F;doc&#x2F;stable&#x2F;nomicon&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;doc.rust-lang.org&#x2F;doc&#x2F;stable&#x2F;nomicon&#x2F;</a>
[2]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;plv.mpi-sws.org&#x2F;rustbelt&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;plv.mpi-sws.org&#x2F;rustbelt&#x2F;</a>
[3]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;os.phil-opp.com&#x2F;printing-to-screen.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;os.phil-opp.com&#x2F;printing-to-screen.html</a>