That's not what "memory safe" means. "Memory safe" is a term of art meaning "not susceptible to memory corruption exploits", like stack and heap overflows, UAFs, and type confusion. Last I checked, there are essentially no non-contrived memory corruption exploits for Go programs; the best you get are people demonstrating register control on contrived programs.

The definition I'm giving is the same as the ISRG's definition at MemorySafety.org. It's the thing everybody is talking about when they talk about memory safety.

The claim being made here is "big if true", because it would imply a lot more languages than Go "aren't memory safe", despite decades without memory corruption exploits.

Yeah, we get it, you performatively hate go.

Yes, but in practice they are extremely hard to exploit. It has been discussed extensively here on HN and in other forums.

That does not make sense to me. Go is memory-safe, but it does not guarantee data-race freedom.

So whats your point here? Haskell?