I hate to say it, but this might be an instance where more jargon might help. "Memory safe" can have numerous implications because there are numerous methods f

I hate to say it, but this might be an instance where more jargon might help. "Memory safe" can have numerous implications because there are numerous methods for attacking memory of a program. As far as we know, there's no language that handles EVERYTHING, so maybe we need to start qualifying what these languages mean. Rust landing page does this well, "no race conditions, move semantics" but then rust users will parrot "it's memory safe, it's memory safe" and they can't explain how to deal with failed allocations in rust. Not that that's necessarily a big deal, but it's just bad terminology for what is a rather complex issue. It's almost like saying a language is "type safe". While reassuring, wtf does that actually mean? What kind of types? Is there polymorphism? Is there row types? Is there substructural typing? Type theorists generally have lots of terms to specify what flavor of types they're talking about, and that works well for them. Rust is kind of bringing a new generation of younger hackers to systems programming and you darned kids need to get off the grass and start being more specific about memory semantics in PLT! /s but kinda serious