why_bother100
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).