In this thread I linked the fly.io security page because it helps us establish that one can talk about _languages_ as being memory safe specifically, which is something it seems you're rejecting as a concept in the parent and other comments.

(In a separate comment about "what do people claim about Go anyhow", I linked the memorysafety.org page, but I did not expect it to help in getting you to the understanding that we can evaluate programming languages as being memory safe or not, where something from the company where someone was a founder seemed more likely to get a person to reconsider the framing of what we're examining)

▲

tptacek 4 days ago | parent [-]

Huh? No, I'm not. Go is a memory-safe programming language, like Java before it, like Python, Ruby, Javascript, and of course Rust.

▲

zozbot234 4 days ago | parent [-]

So you're saying nobody cares about actual memory safety in concurrent code? Then why did the Swift folks bother to finally make the language memory-safe (just as safe as Rust) for concurrent code? Heck why did the Java folks bother to define their safe concurrency/memory model to begin with? They could have done it the Golang way and not cared about the issue.

	▲	tptacek 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't know why you're inventing things for me to have said.