[ralfj]

PLT has used the term "type safety" for a very long time -- so "safety" does not imply a security perspective. And yes it is indeed very different from correctness. But the article doesn't claim that memory safety should imply correctness -- that would be ridiculous, obviously you can write buggy programs in memory-safe languages. The article claims that Go is not memory-safe.

[ngrilly]

I was referring to comments mentioning correctness and safety as interchangeable terms. The article doesn’t mix them up.

[ralfj]

Fair, I misunderstood then. :)