@marcan and that's exactly how this kind of quality-free coffee is written: assuming nothing wrong ever happens. In "memory safe" languages it's the "reliably crash" that would stay in the code because nobody cares to check if it's replaced with actual error handling.
@javierg At least with a memory-safe language someone had to make an *active decision* to reliably crash (making this something solvable by policy, e.g. ban such constructs in the linter), as opposed to no decision at all (which is impossible to protect against or have processes that forbid, once you're using a memory unsafe language).