Passing something that is not a string to strcpy or strlcpy is undefined behavior. They operate on strings, which are null-terminated by definition. On the flip side, strncpy operates on character arrays, which do not have to be null-terminated. (This is also why the output buffer is not always null-terminated: it's not meant to represent a string, despite the highly confusing str- prefix.)

Look at the declarations:

  char *strcpy(char *dest, const char *src);
  char *strncpy(char *dest, const char *src, size_t n);
  size_t strlcpy(char *dest, const char *src, size_t size);

From that, how do you know that strncpy expects and produces a character array, strcpy expects and produces a string, and strlcpy takes either a character array or string and produces a string?

Your descriptions of the string/character copy functions are factual and accurate. But correct use depends on programmer understanding. You do not get any runtime guarantee. And IME, when you are under a deadline, 13 function calls and 3 message queues deep in some ancient codebase, while trying to get a non-trivial feature working, the distinction between a character array and a string is easily forgotten.

Anyways, my assertions are:

1) Using C for strings is a poor choice 2) If your compiler vendor or cranky boss forces use of C, use strlcpy to handle string copying.

I don't disagree, although I would suggest using something other than strlcpy because it also may not do what you want.