The statement "there is no memory safety without thread safety" does not suggest that memory safety is sufficient to provide thread safety. Instead, it's just saying that if you want thread safety, then memory safety is a requirement.

▲

minitech 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Instead, it's just saying that if you want thread safety, then memory safety is a requirement.

It's saying the opposite – that if you want memory safety, thread safety is a requirement – and Java and C# refute it.

	▲	zozbot234 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Java and C# refute it. No, they don't. They're using a different meaning for "thread safety" that's more useful in context since they do ensure data race safety - which is the only kind of thread safety OP is talking about. By guaranteeing data race safety as a language property, Java and C# are proving OP's point, not refuting it.
	▲	kibwen 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> It's saying the opposite Indeed, you're correct, I interpreted the implications in reverse.