> It is way safer than void *

I said "it's unsafe", not "it's not safer than void*".

> (i.e. exit cleanly without corrupting memory).

This makes no sense. If it exits, who cares if the memory of the process is corrupted?

Also, this is the point: it exits instead of the compiler telling you this code will crash before you ship it.

That's the point of static type safety (which Go doesn't provide in this case): it lets you ship code that is provably incorrect and that will not work once deployed (it will exit, like you say).

This is why I said "it's unsafe".