> They got rid of the safeties pretty late, when they ripped out their GC, but kept their false promises all over.

This seems like a non-sequitur to me? The presence/absence of a GC is not dispositive with respect to determining "safety", especially when the GC itself involves unsafe code.

▲

rurban 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Have you ever seen a GC system with memory unsafeties? I cannot remember any

▲

afdbcreid an hour ago | parent [-]

Ah. I believe pretty much every safe language on the planet constantly has bugs in the implementation that can be exploited to cause unsafety. Sometimes they even get CVEs, e.g. in JavaScript VMs.

	▲	rurban 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't do Javascript, but any self-respecting language which calls itself safe is actually safe. Just not the cheaters: Rust, Java (until recently), and of course Javascript with its unsafe implementations. Memory safety bug in a proper lisp? Unheard of, unless you break the GC or do wrong FFI calls.