Rust, for all its faults, at least engages with its critics. I've long faulted Rust's use of Result over exceptions, for example, but the maintainers at least acknowledge that other options exist and each has trade-offs. Not Pizlo and his fans.
To be clear, I like Fil-C. It's a practical implementation of something that should have existed a long time ago. And Pizlo is, in fact, a great programmer. It just rubs me the wrong way that he can't be content with having done excellent work --- he has to claim things that his system doesn't provide (like memory safety under data races --- minor fault, but still) and claim that other systems are worse in ways they are not (e.g. with respect to Rust having unsafe blocks).
Is genuine excellence not enough? Why must he persist in claiming a false perfection?
If considering only "safety", then Fil-C is more safe than any Rust containing unsafe blocks, no? With the usual caveats about whether an abort() is safe.
Why?
That said, I've spent too much of my life chasing implicit control flow to accept exceptions. Heck, C++'s "noexcept" is a strong argument against exceptions all by itself.