The posted link talks about how the types act as documentation, and in turn enforce it. I’d recommend reading the whole thread that someone else posted below.
I was criticizing your incorrect inference “memory-safe language => better-enforced API contract”. The only thing memory-safe languages do in that context is to remove a single aspect from the universe of things that can be ambiguous in an API, and they also don’t cause anything else to be enforced. (Rust does more, but that’s because of properties beyond mere memory-safety.) In other words, “memory-safe language” doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.
Jeez, there’s a whole comment above that explaining the context and caveating it with the needs of robust type system too.
If you’re pedantically holding on to one sentence as a gotcha, because I didn’t caveat everything, then fine. But seems a bit much to then say I’m forcing a definition just because you ignore the rest.
