[wavemode]

I'm talking specifically about memory safety (when using unsafe/raw pointers). Being able to say "once I allocate this memory, the garbage collector will take care of keeping it alive up until it's no longer referenced anywhere" makes avoiding most memory safety errors relatively effortless, compared to ensuring correctness of lifetimes.

[ISV_Damocles]

Please see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41720769

You can absolutely opt-out of lifetime management in Rust. It's not usually talked about because you sacrifice performance to do it and many in the Rust community want to explicitly push Rust in the niches that C and C++ currently occupy, so to be competitive the developer does have to worry about lifetimes.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with Rust's safety, and the fact that Rust refuses to compile if you don't provide it a proper solution there means it's at least as safe as Python and Java on the memory front (really, it is more as I have already stated). Just because it's more annoying to write doesn't affect it's safety; they are orthogonal dimensions to measure a language by.

[gomerspiles]

Most memory safety errors are from not being able to test things like whether you are really dropping references in all cases or whether your C++ additions are interacting with each other. C is not safe but it is safer than C++. Rust is not going to stop all run away memory possibilities but it isn't going to hide them like a JS GC.

If your goal is to ship to most users something that kind of works then there are certainly complex solutions that will do that.. If your goal is memory safety that's more like every device working as expected which is done with less bloat not more.