It's easy to write code that does the wrong thing quickly in any language, and IME that tends to be the usual result of choosing C.

ok, you are aware that the vast majority of the worlds software is written in C.... yes there are problems with it but it is still suitable for real-time, embedded, safety critical software of the sort I've been making quite successfully for close to 30 years.

Don't fall into the 'C is the devil' trap, any tool can be misused.

Straight-up C is not at all suitable for safety-critical software. C plus various bolt-on tools for static analysis and the like can be usable, but is always going to be less effective (IMO) than a unified language where every tool is working according to the same rules.

There might be a few legitimate use cases for C, but I've seen people pick it for the wrong reason so often (and using C because "it would be performant" is entirely invalid IME).

You would have to argue with the overwhelming majority of safety-critical software that is and has been for decades, written in C...

Of course, static analysis is always used in combination with proper coding style... but that is just the normal (professional) C development environment.

> You would have to argue with the overwhelming majority of safety-critical software that is and has been for decades, written in C...

> Of course, static analysis is always used in combination with proper coding style... but that is just the normal (professional) C development environment.

>> Straight-up C is not at all suitable for safety-critical software. C plus various bolt-on tools for static analysis and the like can be usable, but is always going to be less effective (IMO) than a unified language where every tool is working according to the same rules.

Pretty sure you've just restated GP's point in your second paragraph.

You just have to use the right libraries:

https://github.com/Adaptv/ribs2