> and they tend to have an objective of saying that there's only one mainstream language that provides memory safety. Yeah! I agree it's hard to do it without

> and they tend to have an objective of saying that there's only one mainstream language that provides memory safety. Yeah! I agree it's hard to do it without some kind of axioms or circularity, but it's also important to get the definition right, because at some point, we'll need to be able to objectively say whether some piece of critical software is memory safe, or not. So we have to keep trying to find a good definition. I think that means rejecting the bad definitions.