[dragonwriter]

> C# is a memory safe language, period

It's quite possible that what the author intends by “memory protections” is broader than what is captured by “memory safety”; e.g., the borrower checker is, in a sense, a way of protecting memory from unexpected changes in parallel tasks.

[brighteyes]

I think that's too generous to the author given the other mistakes in the article, but sure, if you expand the meaning beyond regular memory safety, then it becomes a mixed picture: Rust protects from some race conditions, but other types of parallel code must use 'unsafe'. And as mentioned before some data structures can be done safely in C# but not in Rust.

It is definitely false for the author to say Rust is "superior to C# in regards to better memory protections", in any definition of "memory protections".

[writepub]

Is the author's purported "wording" in the article from extensive coding experience in rust and c#, or any other language?

Or, did someone prod a journalist with little familiarity in programming theory, to write positive "spin" on Rust being explored by Microsoft? Is it even news for the world's largest software company (by market cap), to explore the use of emerging languages?

[dragonwriter]

> the author's purported "wording"

I missed the part where whether the author used words and, if so, which words they were was a matter of controversy.

[writepub]

> “memory protections” is broader ...

That's the part you cited, and went on to imply the author might be referring to Rust's borrower checker. Nothing from the author's "wording" implies knowledge of Rust's memory protection techniques