[timkq]

I agree with your sentiment - and I apologize, I've since revised my comment.

Hating on memory safety as a concept is pretty cognitively dissonant for a programmer (and in this case [& many others], cognitive dissonance is a sign of some underlying mental illness). Memory safety is something a programmer should strive to achieve 100%.

Not only that, but static typing is absolutely unrelated to memory safety. (How can you even compare these two concepts???)

[Aardwolf]

Depends on the use case, while you care about it when writing software for use on modern systems, low level programming on something where you can have unrestricted access to, for example, all of its 1024 bytes of address space at once can be fun too

But of course appreciating this doesn't equal "hating memory safety"

[timkq]

I agree with you.

He's conflating memory safety with languages that provide memory safety (by which I think he means Rust, as that's another thing listed in his "disliked" things list) - that's what I feel is the dumbest about this. For me, this seems like the most of his code is riddled with use-after-free, double-free, not freeing etc. bugs. He may be intelligent, but if his intelligence goes to no use (besides making random C side projects..), it is not worth it. Also he claims he was a member of Mensa, no comment on that one.