I think we need to do everything we can to make it so that the tools that regular programmers use aren't dangerous and/or insecure by default; otherwise, we're

I think we need to do everything we can to make it so that the tools that regular programmers use aren't dangerous and/or insecure by default; otherwise, we're just playing security vulnerability whack-a-mole. Better to solve problems at the source than try to educate people how not to use a tool incorrectly. This is really hard because there are so many widely used tools and abstractions that were designed to be as powerful as possible rather than to be easy to formally verify for correctness. I feel like the whole software industry is built on a wobbly foundation, but it's hard to part with tools we know because they're useful and they work, even if they do break rather often. A good start would be to stop using C and C++ for new projects, and generally try to eradicate undefined behavior at all levels of software. There's a lot of really great software written in C and C++, and it would be a huge undertaking to replace, say, the Linux kernel with something written in Rust or Swift or some language that hasn't been invented yet. I think the eventual benefits may greatly outweigh the costs, but it's a lot easier to sit in a local optimum where everything is comfortable and familiar than to set out on a quest to, say, formally verify that no use-after-free errors or race conditions are possible in any of the software running on a general-purpose computer with ordinary applications.