| ▲ | minitech 5 days ago | |
> 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. | ||