|
| ▲ | vlovich123 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| About as real as claiming that C/C++ is memory safe because of sanitizers IMHO. |
| |
| ▲ | Ygg2 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I mean, Zig does have non-null pointers. It prevents some UB. Just not all. |
|
|
| ▲ | gjajric 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have heard different arguments, such as https://zackoverflow.dev/writing/unsafe-rust-vs-zig/ . |
|
| ▲ | tomnipotent 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I'm unaware of any such marketing. |
| |
| ▲ | dwattttt 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Zig does claim that it > ... has a debug allocator that maintains memory safety in the face of use-after-free and double-free which is probably true (in that it's not possible to violate memory safety on the debug allocator, although it's still a strong claim). But beyond that there isn't really any current marketing for Zig claiming safety, beyond a heading in an overview of "Performance and Safety: Choose Two". | | |
| ▲ | tomnipotent 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a library feature (not intended for release builds), not a language feature. |
|
|
