[fulafel]

They don't have GC so they either make programs difficult to write (Rust) which hinders delivering secure replacements, or have use-after-free security problems (Zig) [1].

Use a GC when you can, it's the biggest programming productivity and quality improvement in PLT of the last 60+ years.

[1] Though I know Zig has some interesting mitigations, some used and some under research: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31853964 https://lobste.rs/s/v5y4jb/how_safe_is_zig#c_vddk9j

[drran]

Rust doesn't have GC, but it has very good automatic memory management. GC or memory management doesn't make programs immune to buffer overflows, which is the most common security vulnerability these days, while use-after-free is at 4th place.

[fulafel]

What do you mean by automatic memory management here?

(I misspoke a bit with "Rust doesn't have GC", it does have opt in basic GC in the form of ref counting, but it's not used much because a headline feature of Rust is code without GC and I guess libs with interfaces requiring GC would be considered uncool)

[valenterry]

Sure, I agree - I don't think what you said contradicts my point.

[bitwize]

Modern automatic memory management techniques like RAII and ARC largely render GC obsolete.

[pjmlp]

Reference counting is hardly modern, and is a GC algorithm.