Most of the bad stuff in glibc is due to bad API's, not to bad programming languages. (E.g., non-reentrant functions with global state, functions that deliberat

Most of the bad stuff in glibc is due to bad API's, not to bad programming languages. (E.g., non-reentrant functions with global state, functions that deliberately crash on incorrect input, poor separation between standard library functions and non-standard but commonly accepted ones, poor separation between stuff that's needed for C and stuff that wraps kernel/syscall functionality, etc.) Parts of it probably should be replaced with safer implementations, but as long as you're going for 100% compatibility you're still putting lipstick on a pig.