It's done in bad faith. Some are vehemently against Rust because of the "culture" around criticizing other languages' memory safety models, namely C/C++.
It is not the case, not bad faith intended. To think it is a protest may be nearer.
Build in release a hello world, Build in release the example of this library (replacing the assert_eq by a println!("{}", zoned) or other ), or even a different library if it have a large dependence tree. Open on a text editor both files. The presence of the string messages for "unwrap" increased, right?
One can observe the code in this library take care of making reach the user the errors in most the parts of the library, so:
how was increased the string messages for "unwrap"? How can one know from were they came from? One ends up having to read all the dependencies^5, from were almost always a unwrap() reach the runtime of the release build.
