> disregard for safety Your opinion seems to be that any future systems language that doesn't implement a heavy Rust-style borrow checker and explicit safe/uns

> disregard for safety Your opinion seems to be that any future systems language that doesn't implement a heavy Rust-style borrow checker and explicit safe/unsafe modes "disregards safety"? Zig does have a lot of checks, such as bounds checking[1]. There are also test modes that help catch errors. I don't know what you're referring to about "information breach". > The manual states that dangling pointers is the developers problem... In a systems language where you can cast an int to a pointer: const ptr = @intToPtr(*i32, 0xdeadbee0); or where you have to manually manage memory, what else do you expect? Zig made the design choice to not split the world into safe vs unsafe. It seems a bit unwarranted to say that because they didn't make the same design choices Rust did that they have a "disregard for safety". [1] https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Index-out-of-Bounds https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Index-out-of-Bound...