> In my view, for a language that bills itself as safe, there should not exist such things as undefined behaviors. As far as I am concerned, then, based on the

> In my view, for a language that bills itself as safe, there should not exist such things as undefined behaviors. As far as I am concerned, then, based on the advertising of Rust, this is false advertising. The key thing from the reference [0]: > "Type checking provides the guarantee that these issues are never caused by safe code." It's subtle, but I think the situation is that "some segfaults are caused by undefined behaviour, and some undefined behaviour causes segfaults". Neither fully contains the other. One thing I was trying to get across is that a segmentation fault has a very specific meaning, and that meaning is not "bad thing was done with pointers". [0]: http://doc.rust-lang.org/reference.html#behavior-considered-undefined http://doc.rust-lang.org/reference.html#behavior-considered-...