> Type enforcement can be static, catching potential errors at compile time, or dynamic, associating type information with values at run-time and consulting them as needed to detect imminent errors, or a combination of both.
interface{} is type-checked at runtime. It's type-safe because because you can't e.g. fish out an integer out of interface{} value that represents a string. Runtime won't allow it.
You can either extract a string or the runtime will crash if you insist on extracting anything else. Unless you use unsafe package, in which case you explicitly want to skip type-safety.
When "type safe" is mentioned without qualification, it almost always refers to static type safety. This is one of those times. So no, the sync.Map container is not typesafe like a regular map is.
"Static type safety" will generally mean type safety established at compile time. In this context, "static" tends to mean "compile time" and "dynamic" tends to mean "runtime".
For example, one might say "static code analysis" to mean analyzing code without running it, such as during a phase during compilation. In contrast, "dynamic code analysis" tends to mean actually running the code and making decisions based on what happens at runtime, such as in JIT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation) techniques that identify hotspots.
According to whom? Certainly not according to wikipedia.
Given that it's a pretty big distinction I would think it's on the speaker to be un-ambiguous and say "it's not statically type safe" vs. ambiguous "type safe".
I've certainly seen my share of people claiming that "interface{} is just like void * in C" when they speak about Go's (lack of) type safety.
I also don't see how insisting on accurate and un-ambiguous terminology ticks people off so much to downvote. I imagine they think I said something much more incorrect than I did.
"type safe" has come to mean "statically type safe" over time in common conversation. You were downvoted because this intended usage was clear to the people who downvoted you and their perception of your comment was that it provided no value, e.g. was a nitpick.
I would note that the Wikipedia page does not take as strong a position as you seem to imply, reading:
> In the context of static (compile-time) type systems, type safety usually involves (among other things) a guarantee that the eventual value of any expression will be a legitimate member of that expression's static type. The precise requirement is more subtle than this — see, for example, subtype and polymorphism for complications.
Since golang is statically typed, type safety is generally understood to mean static type safety.
Well, non-type safety isn't really worth discussing. The big differentiators these days are: does it fail at compile time or run time? This is emphatically the latter category.
