Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haskell’s fromJust, and similar partial functions like head, are as dangerous as Rust’s unwrap. The difference is only in the failure mode. Rust panics, whereas Haskell throws a runtime exception. You might think that the Haskell behavior is “safer” in some sense, but there’s a huge gotcha: exceptions in pure code are the mortal enemy of lazy evaluation. Lazy evaluation means that an exception can occur after the cat…
I forgot about fromJust. On the other hand, fromJust is shunned by practically everybody writing Haskell. `unwrap` doesn't have the same status. I also understand why. Rust wanted to be more appealing, not too restrictive while Haskell doesn't care about attracting developers.
It's an overstatement to say that these are "shunned by practically everybody". They're commonly used in scenarios where the author is confident that the failure condition can't happen due to e.g. a prior test or guard, or that failure can be reliably caught. For example, you can catch a `read` exception reliably in IO. They're also commonly used in GHCi or other interactive environments.
I disagree that the Rust perspective on unwrap is significantly different. Perhaps for beginning programmers in the language? But the same is often true of Haskell. Anyone with some experience should understand the risks of these functions, and if they don't, they'll eventually learn the hard way.
One pattern in Rust that may mislead beginners is that unwrap is often used on things like builders in example docs. The logic here is that if you're building some critical piece of infra that the rest of the program depends on, then if it fails to build the program is toast anyway, so letting it panic can make sense. These examples are also typically scenarios where builder failure is unusual. In that case, it's the author's choice whether to handle failure or just let it panic.