is false because of his admission here:

If “Rust isn’t [memory safe] (because unsafe)”, and “Zig isn’t (because uaf)”, then Fil-C isn't (because zunsafe_call/zunsafe_fast_call).

I read the thread, and couldn't disagree more.

> If Rust isn’t memory safe (because unsafe), and Zig isn’t (because uaf), then Fil-C isn't (because zunsafe_call/zunsafe_fast_call).

Rust isn’t memory safe (because unsafe) isn't an argument anyone makes, it's that Rust that uses unsafe isn't memory safe!

It's called `unsafe` for a reason dude, not even the Rust people think it's safe.

mirashii 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Rust isn’t memory safe (because unsafe) isn't an argument anyone makes

This is an argument that Fil-C makes, by choosing a very specific definition of memory safety. It’s even stated explicitly in that tweet linked.

What precisely is that definition of memory safety? I'm not sure I follow.

	▲	mirashii 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Probably the shortest statement of Filip's definition is at https://fil-c.org/invisicaps . There's a few other statements around HN and twitter, like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43195623 , and the recent GISMO talk But you can see in a number of his public comments statements that Rust is not memory safe by his definition because it has unsafe as an escape hatch. https://x.com/filpizlo/status/2079244258062766177 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49053608 as some examples.
	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]