> I don't think there's a truly safe programming language.
This is correct, technically, but you can achieve really high assurances of safety. "safe" is not a binary, but a spectrum.
The rest of the comment is patently false. It's actually close to the opposite of reality. The stricter the type system, the smaller the risk of unexpected behavior. Very very smart people who "know how to manage memory" use C and introduce memory errors very often. It's actually only in small, ungeneralizable programs where weaker type systems don't matter.
This is correct, technically, but you can achieve really high assurances of safety. "safe" is not a binary, but a spectrum.
The rest of the comment is patently false. It's actually close to the opposite of reality. The stricter the type system, the smaller the risk of unexpected behavior. Very very smart people who "know how to manage memory" use C and introduce memory errors very often. It's actually only in small, ungeneralizable programs where weaker type systems don't matter.