Java also sometimes uses "memory safe" to refer to programs that don't have null pointer exceptions. So in that sense, Java isn't memory safe by construction either.

These terms are used slightly differently by different communities, which is why I discuss this point in the article. But you seem adamant that you have the sole authority for defining these terms so :shrug:

▲

pizlonator 4 days ago | parent [-]

When those US government articles about how we should switch to memory safe languages come out, they refer to Java as a “memory safe language”.

They also count data race freedom as part of memory safety, which I think is wrong (and contradicts their inclusion of Java and even Go in the list of memory safe languages).

So no, I’m not an authority. I’m just following the general trend of how the term is used.

And ive never heard “memory safe” used in relation to not having null pointer exceptions. That’s a new one and sounds nonsensical, frankly

	▲	ralfj 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> They also count data race freedom as part of memory safety, which I think is wrong (and contradicts their inclusion of Java and even Go in the list of memory safe languages). For Java, there's no contradiction if you define data race freedom as "data races cannot cause arbitrary memory corruption / UB". > And ive never heard “memory safe” used in relation to not having null pointer exceptions. That’s a new one and sounds nonsensical, frankly I was also surprised, but it's what I was told by people working on verification of Java programs. And you can see e.g. at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-1750... that people are proving memory safety of Java programs, which would not make sense at all if all Java programs are memory safe by construction.