> It's well established that writing safe and sound C code is an impossible feat You make it sound like this is somehow particular to C. I hold the opinion th

> It's well established that writing safe and sound C code is an impossible feat You make it sound like this is somehow particular to C. I hold the opinion that when you're using such an open definition of "sound and safe" (e.g. code will never do anything that could reasonably called a "bug" from a user's perspective) it is impossible to write "safe and sound" code in any programming language. But that is not really a problem with the language, but with the definition of the term "sound and safe". If you use a more constrained definition of "sound and safe"; one that would actually allow you to write "correct" code in a language, then C code can just be as sound and safe as rust code or Coq. It really just depends on your definitions. In a way I agree with what I believe the grandparent tried to say; one thing that consistently rubs me about the Rust community is that they oftem seem to be using a very constrained definition of "safe" when advertising that rust is a "safe language", but a very open definition of safe when proclaiming that more or less every other systems language is "unsafe". That may be true using their definition of safe, but is a bit of dirty PR trick.