[polotics]

This "accommodate less skilled practitioners" you wrote is something that never fails to puzzle me from C/C++ practicing colleagues: the idea that in the problem space there is a high-risk high-reward zone of top performance where only the heroes dare tread.

I am sorry but my observarion is that Nim and LLVM and dare I say even GC-less Java all achieve the same performance as C without the footgun baggage. Sometimes it is good to find a way to move on.

[Xeamek]

>I am sorry but my observarion is that Nim and LLVM and dare I say even GC-less Java all achieve the same performance as C

This is just false. Sure, they probably are 'close enough', but you can't claim the performance is 'the same' simply because those languages inherently do more to achieve the same results.

[p_l]

C inherently does spend more CPU time on memory management than some GC systems.

The fact that a lot of C/C++ fans do not properly profile those areas of their programs does not mean they do not pay for them.

Or that defensive coding (assuming they do not want to introduce a happy little accident of CVE into the world) is free compared to having compiler lift necessary asserts outside of hot loop.

Some memory-safe languages even provide a faster feedback loop on exact instructions that will be executed for all code you write (probably most famous example is Common Lisp, which mandates that DISASSEMBLE is accessible to developer at all times)