{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreifczdbgzf53znkqkucyzz3gjnqr3cc4kxejzolydpag4iehdjbhea",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ivbknywyskln22er3nkssdhl/app.bsky.feed.post/3mpjdgmrcvw62"
  },
  "path": "/t/language-vision-regarding-safety-guarantees/24418#post_16",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-30T14:07:29.000Z",
  "site": "https://internals.rust-lang.org",
  "textContent": "ia0:\n\n>   * Users can choose to call a safe or performant version depending on whether they are careful enough.\n>\n\n\nI'm always careful when writing code. Calling a safe `sort` that double-checks something redundantly usually doesn't hurt me, so I call that. That's not an indication that I'm not careful in my own code.\n\nia0:\n\n> For safety guarantees it's the same idea but where it's the author deciding whether they are careful instead of the client.\n\nBy that criterion, all the functions that are provided by my crates would have full robustness guarantees because I consider myself a careful programmer.",
  "title": "Language vision regarding safety guarantees"
}