There are so many parts of C that are unsafe that a secondary tool is needed to have an reasonable type-checking and that tends to be devastating if they can be easily avoided by even safety critical engineers.
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_... "Toyota does not claim to have followed MISRA Guidelines"
And honestly I dont think we agree on what "a few" is. In my book if any more than 4 or 10 people die from a solved problem in computer science (like strong typing, mutexes, and range checking) that is already way too yes many
As far as decisions on a whim compare the two language design efforts and i'll let you decide:
http://www.adapower.com/index.php?Command=Class&ClassID=FAQ&... "The requirements were not a language specification, but instead they attempted to define rigorously the needed characteristics in a form that could be critically reviewed."
https://www.codingunit.com/the-history-of-the-c-language “It’s entirely Dennis Ritchie’s work”
It took a decade to even decide what the C language really was and standardize it -- sounds pretty undefined and whimsical to me. But we all use and understand words differently so let's agree to disagree :)
Wow. Hyperbole much?
I get that you don't like C, but you sound like a raving lunatic who is completely unconnected with reality.
Devastating design flaws? Flaws I can agree with. Devastating? That sounds a bit overstated.
Caused many people to die? I call BS. (Yes, I'm pretty sure you might be able to document a few. But you said "many", and I'm calling you on it.)
Decisions made on a whim? Again, BS. In fact, at this point you're just making stuff up.