6 ms·

I think it's reasonable to want that in principle, but in practice it gets really messy. What if I use a library which returns me a manually-mis-managed pointer

I think it's reasonable to want that in principle, but in practice it gets really messy. What if I use a library which returns me a manually-mis-managed pointer (either due to a library bug or me not setting up manual memory management correctly when initializing the library) which segfaults on read or write? That's kind of spooky behavior in a language that prides itself on simplicity. There are ways that could be done (for example by making the type system aware of whether or not something is hand-managed and potentially unsafe) but not without adding considerable complexity to the language and, presumably, the implementation.

Reelin 7y ago
Doesn't your scenario essentially amount to asking what happens if you use a poorly written library that does bad things and it breaks your program in unexpected ways? That can happen in every language I'm aware of, regardless of safety guarantees. For Go, consider the unsafe.Pointer type. This commonly recurring idea that we need to somehow banish all insecurity and risk is flawed in my opinion. When safe is the easiest and most convenient way of doing something, it will generally be used. What we need are sane defaults, combined with explicit and unambiguous interfaces for when we do choose to take manual control. The real issues start to arise when a language exhibits unexpected behavior, when automatic memory management is opt-in instead of opt-out, and similar.