[globnomulous]

> is completely unreadable for what it does

Maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on "completely unreadable" rather than the rest of the quotation, but I find the example crystal clear, and I'd never expect code intended to illustrate, clearly and loudly, language features to read naturally.

> to make a language safer you should remove the things that make unsafe behavior possible, not add constructs which make safe behavior easier.

Some of this guy's other (equally superb) blog posts explain why this isn't an option: it breaks decades' worth of C code, and the C standards group is strongly committed to ensuring that C that compiled 20, 30, 40 years ago continues to compile.

Regardless, I find it incredibly weird to read the statement "you should [...] not add constructs which make safe behavior easier," no matter the contents of "[...]." If your goal is to improve the security of a programming language or the maintainability of code in that language, and you don't want breaking changes, this isn't just your best option. It's your only option, I think.