> ... has a debug allocator that maintains memory safety in the face of use-after-free and double-free
which is probably true (in that it's not possible to violate memory safety on the debug allocator, although it's still a strong claim). But beyond that there isn't really any current marketing for Zig claiming safety, beyond a heading in an overview of "Performance and Safety: Choose Two".
About as real as claiming that C/C++ is memory safe because of sanitizers IMHO.
I mean, Zig does have non-null pointers. It prevents some UB. Just not all.
I have heard different arguments, such as https://zackoverflow.dev/writing/unsafe-rust-vs-zig/ .
I'm unaware of any such marketing.
Zig does claim that it
> ... has a debug allocator that maintains memory safety in the face of use-after-free and double-free
which is probably true (in that it's not possible to violate memory safety on the debug allocator, although it's still a strong claim). But beyond that there isn't really any current marketing for Zig claiming safety, beyond a heading in an overview of "Performance and Safety: Choose Two".
Runtime checks can only validate code paths taken, though. Also, C sanitizers are quite good as well nowadays.
That's a library feature (not intended for release builds), not a language feature.