That's completely different from type safety. It's not completely different from type safety. You're right, they're not the same thing, but GCs prevent a comm

That's completely different from type safety. It's not completely different from type safety. You're right, they're not the same thing, but GCs prevent a common form of type safety violation. With that said there are other techniques that exist that are orthogonal to GC. At the same time there are problems, like lack of bounds checking, which can result in type safety issues. My point isn't that you need a GC per se, but you do need memory safety. GCs happen to be one of the most prevalent ways to achieve it. Someone else in this thread noted that they build a complete runtime that guaratees memory safety and requires their devs to code against that runtime. That's fine too (although I think a lot less common than that poster might lead one to believe). It's almost like the memory safe subset of other popular existing runtimes.