Yeah, the idea is that C/C++ has a finite set of "dangerous" elements. SaferCPlusPlus attempts to provide safe compatible substitutes for those elements. In C,

Yeah, the idea is that C/C++ has a finite set of "dangerous" elements. SaferCPlusPlus attempts to provide safe compatible substitutes for those elements. In C, basically the only dangerous elements are pointers and arrays (if you consider them separate things), right? SaferCPlusPlus provides safe compatible replacements for pointers (and new/malloc and delete/free). There is a "general" safe pointer type that can be used as a direct substitute for native pointers in most situations, but can sometimes have a noticeable performance cost, depending on usage. Faster safe pointers are also provided, but cannot be used in all situations. Replacing all the pointers and arrays in your C code with the safer substitutes will eliminate the possibility of invalid memory access, in your code. Of course this doesn't prevent them from occurring in any unsafe libraries you use, including the standard library. Also, there are certain behaviors in C that may not translate well to SaferCPlusPlus. Like exotic pointer arithmetic. Or, for example, you could imagine some C code that compares two pointers that point to items that have already been deallocated to see if they were previously pointing to the same item. Is that valid in C? Anyway, that kind of thing is not supported by the safe pointers. There is not yet an automatic translator from C to SaferCPlusPlus, but the translation for most code is straightforward and direct. No new paradigms or "Rust borrow checker" type restrictions. You can check out the benchmark code I linked to in my comment to see examples of C++ code before and after conversion to SaferCPlusPlus. A little code reorganization sometimes helps to achieve optimal performance. But isn't that always the case? :) And of course, SaferCPlusPlus requires a modern C++ compiler and has dependencies on the standard library.