[thargor]

Memory safety issues are bugs. Do you know any programmer that does not occasionally create bugs? Don't forget tight schedules, low budgets, ...

Also rust is just what you propose that - a programming language integrated with heavy verification of safeness built-in. Because occasionally someone writes c code without using all available tools to verify the code it is better to have it built in.

[10000truths]

Memory safety is not an issue if you actually learn to take advantage of the C toolchain. I've caught memory leaks and buffer overflows to great effect just by using Valgrind and ASAN. And for most applications, you can limit the attack surface by only writing C for the performance-sensitive areas and using FFI to call into those routines. As a bonus, it becomes much easier to unit test for logical corner cases.

[seanieb]

This just isn’t true in practice. Can you point to a popular c project that’s accomplished this? I bet there are a few tiny ones that make such claims but haven’t received scrutiny.

[letsgotothemoon]

IIUC, it needs extensive code coverage and it's even difficult for library (the lws case).

[baybal2]

> Do you know any programmer that does not occasionally create bugs? Don't forget tight schedules, low budgets, ...

Do not run programming in C on tight schedules, and low budgets. It needs tact, and understanding.

[matthewmacleod]

“Have you simply considered not having bugs” isn’t a useful strategy though.