Comment by dfawcus

That is an absolutist position, which some of us don't agree with. Taking the view that in practice there are degrees of "memory safety". That is generally my position, and that the largest benefits come from spatial safety, then temporal safety, in that order.

On that absolute position, there possibly are no "memory safe" languages, not even Rust as until it's borrow checker "bug" is fixed, it fails the absolutist position. If such a bug is left unfixed for long enough, one can deem it as de-facto "won't fix".

The Go example code provided elsewhere in the thread included a memory race on an "interface value", that being a form of "fat pointer". It was that I was referring to, updating only half of value, so making it internally inconsistent.