Manageable in C. Integer conversions are only a tiny fraction of all the other implicitness in C++.

> decays from enums to integers

Compiler warns. Recent real compilers like gcc even have exhaustiveness checks like OCaml.

> implicit conversions from integers to unexisting enums.

Compiler warns.

- no bounds checking

Reason about that and implement your own scheme. Or prove.

> implicit conversions between pointers and arrays

Have not seen a single bug due to that in more than 1000000 lines of C.

> null terminated strings, that occasionally aren't terminated

Have not seen a bug due to that, this is the canonical example of an overblown hypothetical threat.

> abusing null terminated strings with clever algorithms, e.g. strtok()

Prove the algorithm or don't use it. Hint: As far as proofs are concerned, NUL terminated strings are like Lisp lists terminated with NIL, hence a well-founded data structure that is easily amenable to proofs (unlike C++ constructs).

- the preprocessor

Rarely introduces anything and is still required for C++, especially in sane test suites.

I don't think all that came from C, things like typedef being an alias rather than a separate type seem much older.

You are again just throwing dirt at C, mocking all people who write actually robust buzzword free software.

You are ignoring that C code is much easier for formal proofs that C++ code (the kind that you advocate).