• nous@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I don’t think data races are generally considered a memory safety issue. And a lot of languages do not do much to prevent them but are still widely considered memory safe.

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Even though they are not what people mean when they say “memory-safe”, it is technically a kind of memory safety. It is unsafe to modify non-mutexed/non-atomic memory that another thread might be modifying at the same time.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Yeah, that is why I prefixed that whole comment with “arguably”.

        I feel like the definition of memory safety is currently evolving, because I do think data races should be considered a memory safety issue.
        You’ve got a portion of memory and access to it can be done wrongly, if the programmer isn’t careful. That’s what memory safety is supposed to prevent.

        Rust prevents that by blocking you from passing a pointer for the same section of memory into different threads, unless you use a mutex or similar.
        And because Rust sets a new safety standard, I feel like we’ll not refer to Java and such as “memory-safe” in twenty years, much like you wouldn’t call a car from the 90s particularly safe, even though it was at the time.