NSA calls for a strategic shift to memory safe languages. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Nov/10/2003112742/-1/-1/0/CSI_SOFTWARE_MEMORY_SAFETY.PDF
@yaelwrites it would be cool if there were any such low level languages available. Rust certainly makes claims that are at least partially true, but I find the lack of a clear definition of what they actually mean by memory safety to stand out as a red light.

@smari @yaelwrites It never appeared like that to me - the Rust approach is that as long as the code is not `unsafe`, Rust statically guarantees:
- No data races (Send/Sync)
- No use after free
- No unsafe pointers of any kind

basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)#Memory_safety

Rust (programming language) - Wikipedia

@monad_cat @yaelwrites Yeah. I read through chunks of the Rust compiler some years ago looking for where those guarantees are made explicit. Seems that most of that is just assumed to be true as an implication of the syntax and no-reuse semantics. Which is probably true. But I haven't seen the proof.
@smari @yaelwrites That question got solved/answered with some EU funding through RustBelt: https://plv.mpi-sws.org/rustbelt/
RustBelt