> There is no standard. It's accidentally designed.

Are you really claiming that you can't design a language without an official standard? Not to mention that C itself has been designed long before its first ISO standard. Finally, the idea that a standard committee is a preconditionfor good language design is rather bold, I have to say. The phrase "design by committee" isn't typically used as a compliment...

> You've solved one class of bugs outside of "unsafe {}".

It's "only" the single most important class of bugs for system safety.

This kind of deflection and denialism isn't helping. And I'm saying this as someone who really likes C++.

> that you can't design a language without an official standard?

No, just that it's not 1968 anymore, and if you want to claim your language has learned lessons from the past, then this is one that clearly got missed.

> The phrase "design by committee" isn't typically used as a compliment...

While the phrase "emergent incompatibilities" is only known as a detriment.

> It's "only" the single most important class of bugs for system safety.

Again, I ask for a reference, "according to what?" I understand this is the zeitgeist. Is it actually true? It seems to me this great experiment is actually proving it probably isn't.

> This kind of deflection and denialism isn't helping.

Once again, I asked for proof that the claim was true, you've brought nothing, and instead have projected your shortcomings onto my argument.

> And I'm saying this as someone who really likes C++.

Have you ever pushed for C++ to replace C programs because you assume they would be "better" according to some ill defined and never measured metrics?

Ah, now I realize that you don't necessarily meant something like an ISO standard. I definitely agree that a programm language should have some kind of normative specification and it's not sufficient to say "the spec is the behavior of the compiler".

> Again, I ask for a reference, "according to what?" I understand this is the zeitgeist.

I think that at this point it is pretty well-established that the majority of security CVEs in C or C++ applications are caused by memory safety bugs. For sources see https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/urgent-need-memory-saf.... As a C++ dev this totally makes sense. (I just happen to work in a domain where security doesn't really matter :)

Can I ask what that domain is?

Audio and multimedia art.

thanks

To be clear: I definitely don't think that all C or C++ code should be rewritten in Rust. But for components that are exposed to the public internet or accept untrusted user input it totally makes sense.