| With all respect I think there’s a kind of false dichotomy implicit in your comment. The availability of new tools with significant advantages over the old tools is almost always a reason to consider the new tools for certain use cases, but the new tools are rarely just strictly better on literally everything, there are generally now use cases when you say “the new tool is a solid fit here” and other cases where you say “the old tool still hits the sweet spot better”. And that’s before you consider massive existing code and infrastructure and and tooling and investment: which is very, very often a far higher order bit than C vs not-C. A great example would be a JVM-caliber GC? Thats just such a win over malloc/free so often, but it doesn’t obsolete malloc and free across the board: it gives a thoughtful and mature team a whole new set of options. Rust would be a (comparatively) recent example of a language that hits a lot of the sweet spots of e.g. C/C++ and brings some cool new stuff to the party, and might even represent a better default these days, but the idea that it strictly crushes them in full-stop everything is a political-style conversation not a reasoned engineering tradeoff conversation. Even C++ which has been around forever and is give or take backwards compatible with C with good tools? Hasn’t obsoleted C. More options is generally a good thing (there are exceptions). |