Also... I’m a little concerned that your post has “we’re all equal” social justice vibe to it... which is silly. C is more powerful than because “safety features” aren’t there.... deplorable... LOL.
You try going a day without using something programmed in C.
No social justice vibe was meant. I was trying to say that we're all bad at dealing with the kind of errors which appear in a typical C or (perhaps to a lesser extent) C++ program.
I know that some people are able to do this more successfully than others because of skill, etc, but it's not just about certain individuals. As a whole, the C community has a really poor track record at security and safety and that has a lot to do with the language itself.
Thankfully there was already C++ for those of us that wouldn't move into such a limited language versus what something like Turbo Pascal 6.0 for MS-DOS was already capable of, feature wise.
Man... to listen to hackernews tell it... no one should use C!
I wonder how many comments describing how bad C is are from people on Linux machines?
The problem with C, versus other systems programming languages it that it its pointers, implicit conversions of array into pointers, integer operations, string and array bounds don't have any kind of validation.
On other systems languages disabling such validations is explicit.
C is like JavaScript in the browser, we have to put up with it because UNIX clones won the market of commodity OSes.
C on its own without UNIX, would have failed in the market.
On the desktop world it was already being replaced by C++, Smalltalk, VB, Delphi and 4GL before FOSS based on UNIX and C started to be widespread.
Unfortunately it is impossible to convince people on pure UNIX based OSes to use something else.
Fortunately, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Sony, Nintendo are able to set which programming languages one is allowed to use on their platforms and C is on the way out on their SDKs.
Isn't that why everyone loves python, solving a complex problem in a handful of easily readable lines of code?