1. Safe Zig is(/will be) memory safe. It is not what you deploy, but it is one interesting aspect of Zig's design which makes it very different from "C with ASA

1. Safe Zig is(/will be) memory safe. It is not what you deploy, but it is one interesting aspect of Zig's design which makes it very different from "C with ASAN." 2. Nobody's goal is to use a memory-safe language. The goal is a safe and correct program. A memory-safe language is one way towards memory-safe programs, but the belief that this is the most effective way to achieve safe and correct programs is an interesting hypothesis, but it is just that. It is certainly possible that trading off those guarantees for something else -- like increased confidence across the board -- could result in safer, more correct programs, or at least not any worse. > Also, your writing in this whole thread is full of resentment towards Rust and I don't think your animosity is helpful in any way If you go over this thread again you will see that this is simply not true. I certainly did not bash Rust once. It is a very cool language with a bright future that many people love, but it just doesn't suit my personal tastes, that's all. And because both Rust and Zig are trying to provide safe low-level programming and they do it radically different ways comparing their approaches to safety is interesting. If my points are incomprehensible to you that might be because it is you who are acting with animosity and resentment that cloud your judgement.