The original comment was speaking about getting it wrong with respect to memory safety, not NullPointerExceptions, not array out of bounds accesses, not division by zero, but about memory safety.
This discussion isn't about program correctness as a general and broad concept, Rust and Java both have various strategies to eliminate many classes of errors and both languages leave the door open to many other classes of errors.
This discussion is about whether Rust uses a compile time garbage collector in order to ensure memory safety. It does no such thing, Rust has a borrow checker which ensures that syntactically valid expressions referencing memory have a correspondingly valid semantic interpretation. C++ does not have such a thing, syntactically valid expressions referencing memory may not have any valid semantic interpretation, what is referred to as undefined behavior. This is not what a garbage collector does in any sense of the word. A garbage collector is a system that computes an upper bound on object lifetime and when an object exceeds that upper bound, reclaims the memory associated with the object. Rust does no such thing at compile time.
Rust's system of enforcing memory safety is great, it's a step forward in language design, by all means give it the praise it deserves... just don't refer to it by a concept that already has a well defined meaning and an active area of research. Compile time garbage collection is a separate concept from how Rust enforces memory safety and there's not much utility in reusing that term, all it does is create confusion.
This discussion isn't about program correctness as a general and broad concept, Rust and Java both have various strategies to eliminate many classes of errors and both languages leave the door open to many other classes of errors.
This discussion is about whether Rust uses a compile time garbage collector in order to ensure memory safety. It does no such thing, Rust has a borrow checker which ensures that syntactically valid expressions referencing memory have a correspondingly valid semantic interpretation. C++ does not have such a thing, syntactically valid expressions referencing memory may not have any valid semantic interpretation, what is referred to as undefined behavior. This is not what a garbage collector does in any sense of the word. A garbage collector is a system that computes an upper bound on object lifetime and when an object exceeds that upper bound, reclaims the memory associated with the object. Rust does no such thing at compile time.
Rust's system of enforcing memory safety is great, it's a step forward in language design, by all means give it the praise it deserves... just don't refer to it by a concept that already has a well defined meaning and an active area of research. Compile time garbage collection is a separate concept from how Rust enforces memory safety and there's not much utility in reusing that term, all it does is create confusion.