Hacker News Reader

Comment by feukreust | Hacker News Reader

What do you mean just barely? They're exactly as safe as Rust. Perhaps they're not making it a selling point because it's been obvious for a few decades that automatic memory management tends to be memory safe.

In fact some languages are even safer (e.g. Scheme and various Lisp implementations don't have integer overflows due to having bignums by default).

View on HN

I guess I'm using "memory safety" very broadly and not literally, which I admit is not good.

But, the borrow-checker seems to be significantly safer than anything else I've read about. Having no null pointer sounds very smart...

Fair enough. I think Rust is the only language on that list which solves the "billion dollar mistake" (null pointers).

Null pointers are not a memory safety issue in most managed languages. It is completely well-defined behavior in Java for example, you can safely catch any NPE and go on as if nothing happened. This is not true of C, where dereferencing a nullptr is incredibly unsafe.

Except Rust can still have serious memory safety errors like double-frees and memory leaks.

All those other languages cannot. Rust is much less safe than a GC language in terms of memory.

C# cannot have a memory leak?

We're using very different definitions of those words, I guess.

https://slashdot.org/story/07/11/17/0552247/c-memory-leak-to...

C# allows you to tune the GC, which I believe was the cause of that issue.

Keep in mind by turning off the GC, how have now made C# just as safe as rust, not unsafer.

I think that one was actually circular references in event handlers...

I don’t think so, but I can’t find the answer. Either way, rust 100% does that.

Way easier in C# to avoid that issue. Just don’t use reference counters and use GC.

No way to avoid that in Rust. If you need many references, you must use ARC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com