[wamaral]

If the language does not prevent these mistakes from happening where it would be possible to do so, isn't the language at fault?

[zeusk]

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. The language does not implement those checks because perhaps they're not so trivially implementable in the language.

Sure, rust is "safer" than C, but is it a better language? that's arguable.

[Aaargh20318]

> Sure, rust is "safer" than C, but is it a better language? that's arguable.

Obviously there are more aspects to a language than safety, so I'll give you that, but yes Rust is a better language than C in this aspect.

Don't forget that programming languages are meant for humans, not for computers. One of the primary goals of a programming language is to prevent humans from making dumb mistakes.

[macintux]

> One of the primary goals of a programming language is to prevent humans from making dumb mistakes.

That clearly wasn't the case when C was designed.

[anp]

I'd wager that using C prevents large classes of errors that would be common place in assembly.

That said, colloquial history seems to say that there were plenty of languages which did a better job at that than C.