Deconstructing K&R C Is Dead (2015)

LTO notwithstanding, once you add those more sophisticated constructs, iterating the language becomes more difficult. You don't hit upon the best method for implementing various types the first time, or the second time, or even the third time. glibc is backwards compatible for programs compiled over 15 years ago (GCC's fixinclude hacks notwithstanding). You'll never see that with Rust's or Go's standard library, just like you never saw that with C++.

My point wasn't that static linking was necessary. My point was that static linking is indicative of other tradeoffs that most people don't understand. Static linking isn't just about making packaging easier. It's also about making it easier to write and implement the compiler and standard environment.

My more abstract point is that people who think C is on its last legs don't understand the whole picture. There's nothing intrinsic to C that makes it unsafe. Febrice's compiler was perfectly capable of implementing the C standard to the letter. What makes C unsafe are the requirements found in the niches where C exists, and those requirements don't magically disappear because the name of the language changes.

Rust supports unsafe code, but implementing code in Rust which is rigorously robust in the face of OOM situations, or where you need to implement use-case memory management strategies requires relying almost exclusively on unsafe code. (Try using Rust without boxing, for example, as is necessary if you want to catch OOM.) If you don't need those things, you probably don't need a low-level language, either. I love C, but I also love language like Lua with lexical closures and stackless coroutines. To me, languages like Rust and even C++ exist at a middle ground that is very unappealing to me.

C isn't standing still, either. Strategies like SafeStack (see http://dslab.epfl.ch/proj/cpi/) can provide substantially the same safety guarantees as Rust in terms of real-world attack vectors, without having to modify any existing C software, and without giving up performance.

None of this is to say languages like Rust are useless. Just that the harms and inevitable demise of C per se are, IMHO, greatly exaggerated. And if and when a language like Rust grows in usage, I doubt it will supplant C so much as open and populate virgin territory.

  - A base ten number system
  - Lack of useful structure in the symbols and names for numerals, and lots of weird inconsistencies in number names
  - Inconsistent, confusing, and arbitrary names/notation for basic mathematical operators and functions
  - Use of inferior Gibbs/Heaviside vector algebra instead of Clifford/geometric algebra
  - Very poor notational conventions in many advanced math/physics fields
  - A highly irregular calendar
  - Poorly designed measurement systems
  - English spelling
  - Very distorted dominant world map projections
  - Most nutrition “science”, including federal dietary guidelines
  - Bogus forensic “science” used to imprison innocent people
  - The methodology and writing style used in political science
  - Many essentially debunked economic models which continue to be taught
  - A legal system chock full of incidental complexity and inconsistencies
  - Inadequate species taxonomies
  - Poor color models used in art/design
  - Even worse, specification of colors using proprietary, arbitrary Pantone chips
  - Lots of poor/obsolete metrics used for evaluating lighting
  - Audio mastering with heavy-handed dynamic range compression
  - Lectures as primary pedagogy in high school/college
  - Grammar drills as a method for teaching foreign languages
  - Modern zoning requirements in many countries
  - Many unsafe and inefficient street design requirements
  - The rigid design of modern shoes (let’s not even start on heels)
  - Terrible user interfaces for most household appliances
  - Mediocre user interfaces for many musical instruments
  - An inefficient and dangerous typewriter / computer keyboard (which persists on tiny phone screens!?)
  - Unhealthy design of office furniture, car/airplane seats, child strollers, etc.
  - .....

But using the C++ features that make it safer than C is only an option in small security motivated teams.

Sadly the majority of C++ teams, at least in the enterprise space, tends to use it as "C with classes" thus voiding most improvements the language has to offer over plain C.

Everything else usually has other languages available as well, one just needs to search for what is out there.