3 ms·
> Instead, it's just saying that if you want thread safety, then memory safety is a requirement. It's saying the opposite – that if you want memory safety, thr
by minitech 1y ago
> Instead, it's just saying that if you want thread safety, then memory safety is a requirement.
It's saying the opposite – that if you want memory safety, thread safety is a requirement – and Java and C# refute it.
- zozbot234 1y ago> Java and C# refute it. No, they don't. They're using a different meaning for "thread safety" that's more useful in context since they do ensure data race safety - which is the only kind of thread safety OP is talking about. By guaranteeing data race safety as a language property, Java and C# are proving OP's point, not refuting it.
- kibwen 1y ago> It's saying the opposite Indeed, you're correct, I interpreted the implications in reverse.