>Exactly. All GC does is push down the code that can cause problems like double-frees into the language implementation. It doesn't magically make problems like double-free bugs impossible, like so many people say.
That's like saying moving the likelihood of an event from 1/100 to 1/10000000, and only under very specific pre-conditions that are easily detactable, doesn't make it impossible.
That is, you are technically correct, which is the worst kind of correct.
The difference between double-free bugs in stuff "pushed down in the language implementation" and double-free bugs in programmer's own code is so huge, it's a total game changer.
That's like saying moving the likelihood of an event from 1/100 to 1/10000000, and only under very specific pre-conditions that are easily detactable, doesn't make it impossible.
That is, you are technically correct, which is the worst kind of correct.
The difference between double-free bugs in stuff "pushed down in the language implementation" and double-free bugs in programmer's own code is so huge, it's a total game changer.