| ▲ | phire 5 days ago | |
The definition kind of changed. At the time Go was created, it met one common definition of "memory safety", which was essentially "have a garbage collector". And compared to c/c++, it is much safer. | ||
| ▲ | ralfj 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | |
> it met one common definition of "memory safety", which was essentially "have a garbage collector" This is the first time I hear that being suggested as ever having been the definition of memory safety. Do you have a source for this? Given that except for Go every single language gets this right (to my knowledge), I am kind of doubtful that this is a consequence of the term changing its meaning. | ||
| ▲ | codys 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
That seems contrasted by Rob Pike's statement in 2012 in the linked presentation being one of the places where it's called "not purely memory safe". That would have been early, and Go is not called memory safe then. It seems like calling Go memory safe is a more recent thing rather than a historical thing. | ||