> but in practice fails, because of pervasive use of `unsafe`.
Yes, in `unsafe` code typically dynamic checks or careful manual review is needed. However, most code is not `unsafe` and `unsafe` code is wrapped in safe APIs.
I'm aware C already has a runtime, this adds to it.
> Yes, in `unsafe` code typically dynamic checks or careful manual review is needed. However, most code is not `unsafe` and `unsafe` code is wrapped in safe APIs.
Those are the excuses I heard from C++ programmers for years.
Memory safety is about guarantees enforced by the compiler. `unsafe` isn't that.
Yes, in `unsafe` code typically dynamic checks or careful manual review is needed. However, most code is not `unsafe` and `unsafe` code is wrapped in safe APIs.
I'm aware C already has a runtime, this adds to it.