> Code written in Node.js and Go could be made memory-safe with enough work, but they're both GC based, which inevitably leads to engineers easily missing memory safety issues, unconsciously relying on the language runtime to clean up after them.
Which? You can't use-after-free or double-free if you can't free.
> Interestingly, it turns out that using Rust is more energy efficient than C++ (in some cases) according to a study in 2017 by the University of Minho. It's about three times greener than Go, too. TypeScript is apparently far more energy-hungry (and we're not likely to use pure JavaScript).
The third sentence should ring alarm bells in the head of the author, over what would be going on for a language which generates "similar enough" JS code to be slower than JS. I suspect it's not the language, moreso since the sole source of programs for that study was the Computer Language Benchmarks Game, which is hardly representative of typical code.
Which? You can't use-after-free or double-free if you can't free.
> Interestingly, it turns out that using Rust is more energy efficient than C++ (in some cases) according to a study in 2017 by the University of Minho. It's about three times greener than Go, too. TypeScript is apparently far more energy-hungry (and we're not likely to use pure JavaScript).
The third sentence should ring alarm bells in the head of the author, over what would be going on for a language which generates "similar enough" JS code to be slower than JS. I suspect it's not the language, moreso since the sole source of programs for that study was the Computer Language Benchmarks Game, which is hardly representative of typical code.