[naasking]

> 3) and also by how Microsoft operates (e.g. certainly not using any modern C).

Are you suggesting "modern C" is less prone to memory safety issues, and that if MS used "modern C" then that would meaningfully reduce the 70% of security vulnerabilities it claims are caused by memory safety violations?

[uecker]

I would say a modern style of C using proper abstractions and modern tooling is less prone to memory safety issues than C written in the style of C89.