I can't say for certain why none of the "safer C"s have caught on, but I can say that they all have significant compromises and/or impracticalities. Often, performance cost is one of them. Today though, you can use the safe numerics[1] library along with SaferCPlusPlus[2] (shameless plug) as a high performance solution to address undefined behavior in your C code. This solution preserves most of your C code intact, and there is an auto-translation assistance tool[3] in development to further reduce the effort required. (SaferCPlusPlus currently has a dependency on the standard library, so may not be usable on the most restricted embedded platforms[4].)

If performance is not a concern, just compiling with the appropriate sanitizers[5] is an easy option (though not a complete solution).

But note that all of these solutions take the position that not only is the undefined behavior itself a problem, but also the operation which instigated the undefined behavior. And there is good reason for that. If you just want the undefined behavior to be defined, then the question is, what exactly are you trying to achieve by doing so? Are you hoping to guarantee deterministic behavior while maintaining portability?

[1] https://github.com/robertramey/safe_numerics

[2] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus#safercplusp...

[3] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTransla...

[4] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus/issues/3

[5] http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html

There have been lots of solutions like "SaferCPlusPlus" over the years. In my view, the real reasons why these have not been adopted widely are (1) aversion to any sort of runtime overhead greater than zero; (2) cognitive overhead of introducing new language machinery, type-level or otherwise; (3) interoperability with existing code; (4) few people want to be the first to adopt these kinds of tools in production due to the perceived risk; (5) denial that memory safety problems are indeed problems.

If you're going for wide usage, I think it's actually easier to start over with a new language rather than to try to graft safety features onto C++. A lot of low-level folks don't realize it, but C and C++ are no longer the behemoths they used to be. If you look at the languages people are switching to rather than just absolute usage share, the usage chart [1] paints a very different picture.

[1]: https://blog.sourced.tech/post/language_migrations/eigenvect...

Interesting chart, in spite of what I answered to you in another thread, I have noticed something along those lines regarding C++'s usage on UWP.

From the prominent place it used to have at Microsoft presentations, back in the Windows 8 days, it seems to be relegated to high performance UWP componentes and all presentations, including HoloLens ones, are done in C#.

Also the pivoting from Google regarding Brillo, by dropping the planned C++ Framework and instead adopting the Java one from Android.

I think all your points are probably right (and insightful). But I think in this case the (immediate) goal isn't really popular adoption of this solution by existing C (or maybe even C++) programmers.

In part, it is simply a practical, relatively low cost solution to address the problem of invalid memory access in existing C/C++ code (and thus, for example, remote code execution vulnerabilities in internet facing code). Clearly we've still not reached the point where critical internet infrastructure vulnerabilities are perceived as costly enough to justify actually solving the problem (as you say in point 5). And collectively, we've not yet concluded that cheaper mitigation techniques aren't a "good enough" solution. At least for now.

But the costs (of critical vulnerabilities) are still going up, and there may come a time when some conclude that they have no choice but to properly address the issue. And some may opt for the least expensive option (i.e. something like SaferCPlusPlus rather than a full rewrite in another memory-safe language).

Of course, more appealing solutions might emerge before that time comes.

But there is also a longer term goal. I see a safe dialect of C++ (like SaferCPlusPlus) perhaps relevant in a future where code is liberated from the "language silo" it's trapped in, via auto-translators. For example, I don't expect C programmers to switch to SaferCPlusPlus en masse (although I'll probably continue to encourage it :). The idea is that legacy C code would be auto-translated to SaferCPlusPlus (with or without the support/consent of the original author). Kind of like how the tor guys used to build their ("safer") version of firefox with the sanitizers enabled[1], and didn't need the permission of the firefox developers to do it.

But it doesn't have to be restricted to just legacy C/C++ code. Modern C++ is so powerful that lots of languages could be translated to (a safe dialect of) it. I think. Presumably C++ would be a more appealing language if it had easy access to, say, all the existing Java code via auto-translation. This of course would apply to any language, but I think its power and performance makes C++ a good target for auto-translation. I'm sure other languages would make good targets too.

Basically, in the future I expect auto-translation quality to be a bigger factor wrt language relevance than marketing or mind-share.

[1] https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-browser-55a4-hardened-r...

C will always be around, unless we get rid of UNIX and POSIX compatibility layers.

Which given Microsoft's sudden love to stay relevant, means that we are at the edge of an UNIX monoculture.

So any improvement to make C safer is more than welcome.

My preference would be to have something like Frama-C be part of ANSI C.

Virtually nobody who is not already using Frama-C would start using it as a result of it being added to ANSI C.

Ask industry C programmers "why aren't you using theorem provers to prove the correctness of your C code?" The number of them who will give you "because ANSI didn't standardize them" as an answer is zero.

I know, but since we are not going to get any UNIX/POSIX variant out there replaced with C++, let alone Rust, we better get ways of improving its safety. Even it means just pilling up safety band-aids.

Even Microsoft caved in regarding not supporting C newer than C89, and now have on their Visual Studio roadmap to improve the C support beyond what ANSI C++ requires.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6mqd2e/why_is_msvc_usu...

They also rewrote their User-Mode Driver Framework (UMDF) from COM/C++ back into C, https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/wd...

I am really looking forward to Joe Duffy's keynote at Rustcon, regarding systems programming improvements.