Memory Safety Debate

The cluster revolves around debates on the importance, necessity, and limitations of memory safety in programming languages like Rust versus C++, particularly in preventing security vulnerabilities.

➡️ Stable 0.7x Security
6,573
Comments
19
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#8488
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2008
1
2009
8
2010
8
2011
26
2012
28
2013
59
2014
152
2015
215
2016
333
2017
344
2018
174
2019
413
2020
395
2021
612
2022
856
2023
789
2024
983
2025
1,138
2026
39

Keywords

adacore.com BS access.html FORTRAN OS UI JVM memory memory safety safety safe language security languages bugs unsafe vulnerabilities

Sample Comments

RecycledEle • Mar 3, 2024 • View on HN

No. Memory safety is a big deal.

jobs_throwaway • Oct 18, 2022 • View on HN

is memory safety not a real problem?

ameliaquining • Feb 18, 2023 • View on HN

All languages have memory unsafety somewhere in the stack.

varjag • Dec 8, 2021 • View on HN

I'm really sorry but memory safety reliant on best practices is not memory safety.

pizlonator • Jun 30, 2025 • View on HN

This whole conversation is about memory safety of programming languages, not security vulns that no language can prevent

belovedeagle • Feb 24, 2017 • View on HN

Memory safe languages aren't a panacea. There could just as easily have been a bug in the compiler or standard library with the same result.

kmicklas • Jul 10, 2017 • View on HN

"Secure" and yet they aren't even using a memory safe language such as Rust.

worldsavior • Dec 10, 2022 • View on HN

Isn't memory safety needed in all cases?

IshKebab • Dec 14, 2025 • View on HN

It's not only about memory safety.

quotemstr • Jul 9, 2025 • View on HN

But I thought security vulnerabilities couldn't happen in memory-safe languages!