> To be pedantic, you need more than a GC for memory safety. Like a language (type system, bounds checks) that forces you to only look only inside the memory be

> To be pedantic, you need more than a GC for memory safety. Like a language (type system, bounds checks) that forces you to only look only inside the memory being managed. :-) True enough :-) > Also think of stop-the-world problems inherent with GCs. They can be life threatening in real-time systems. There are GCs that can work in real-time systems, given enough resources. RAII is also not suitable for real-time systems without much care, so the point is pretty much moot. Real-time systems require a level of attention to timing that no regular programming paradigm enables. > So: yes it's true that it's difficult to write safe code in C++, and many safety bugs are related to memory. But that doesn't mean that code in a GCed language is inherently safer. It is very much clear that programming in a GC language is safer than in C++ (or C or assembly) - not safe (the log4j vulnerability comes to mind), but absolutely and certainly safer. Rust has a radically new approach to memory safety that seems to offer similar advantages. It's still a little early (not that much internet-connected Rust-based infrastructure) to say for sure, but so far it does seem to offer similar or better safety guarantees as a GC language.