Did you consider that the organization can be wrong?

> Memory safety is a property of some programming languages that prevents programmers from introducing certain types of bugs related to how memory is used. Since memory safety bugs are often security issues, memory safe languages are more secure than languages that are not memory safe.

That is the definition they give. Since Go does not "prevent programmers from introducing certain types of bugs related to how memory is used." it does not fall under this definition. They can list go as memory safe, but then either they disagree with their own definition or made the mistake of adding Go to that list. Memory safety is not a spectrum. You are either memory safe or unsafe. The spectrum is in the unsafety. Go is obviously less unsafe than C for example.

▲

kiitos 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Memory safety is not a spectrum. You are either memory safe or unsafe.

if there is one takeaway from this discussion, i think it must be that memory safety does not have any single, commonly-accepted, or objective definition -- and that it is pretty obviously a spectrum, not a boolean

	▲	rowanG077 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I could agree to that if the people who claim it would at least put it in their definition. But as it stands it indeed is a boolean. You have to give a definition of something like: "Memory safety denotes the degree to which a programming language guides and protects developers from memory‑related errors—ranging from minimal, manual checks to comprehensive static and runtime enforcement—through mechanisms like strong typing, ownership or borrow checking, and garbage collection." And then also include modern C++ in their lists. because by all accounts it is memory safe by that definition.