There’s a reason why data races aren’t considered a memory safety issue, because we have a concept that deals with concurrency issues - thread safety.
Also for all it’s faults, thread and memory safety in java aren’t issues. In fact java’s concurrent data structures are unmatched in any other programming language. You can use the regular data structures in java and run into issues with concurrency but you can also use unsafe in rust so it’s a bit of a moot point.
Arguably modern c++ ( aka if you don’t use raw pointers), fits all categories.
Didn’t even open the link probably
That’s a fair point, I guess I used binary numbers so much i uni that I just know the small ones by heart and that’s why I find it easier. Following the example, I never convert 101 as 4+0+1, I just see it and know it’s 5.
Read, write, and execute are represented by the numbers 4, 2, and 1, respectively, and you add them together to get the permission
Maybe I’m the weird one here but this seems like a counter intuitive way to remeber/explain it. Each octal digit in the three digit number is actually just 3 binary digits ( 3 bit flags) in order of rwx. For example read and execute would be 101 -> 5.
Because you would be using std::shared_ptr<> rather than a raw pointer, which will automatically deallocate the memory when a shared point leaves the scope in the last place that it’s used in. Along with std::atmoic<shared_ptr> implements static functions that can let you acquire locks and behave like having a mutex.
Now this isn’t enforced at the compiler level, mostly due to backwards compatibility reasons, but if you’re writing modern c++ properly you wouldn’t run into memory safety issues. If you consider that stretching the definition then I guess I am.
Granted rust does a much better job of enforcing these things as it’s unburdened by decades of history and backwards compatibility.