> In practice, it's not an issue, and unlike with rust I have a very clear idea of when and where memory is being freed and allocated.
I'm very skeptical that the lack of memory safety is not going to be an issue "in practice". That's what every C++ developer thinks too until they write code people actually try to attack.
One of the very nice things about memory safety is that it frees the programmer from having to think about when memory is freed most of the time. The compiler or runtime system will take care of that. Most of the time, manual frees are just noise--this observation is the entire reason behind destructors.
I'm very skeptical that the lack of memory safety is not going to be an issue "in practice". That's what every C++ developer thinks too until they write code people actually try to attack.
One of the very nice things about memory safety is that it frees the programmer from having to think about when memory is freed most of the time. The compiler or runtime system will take care of that. Most of the time, manual frees are just noise--this observation is the entire reason behind destructors.