> The difference between assembly and C is just that you need couple of instructions in Assembly to get an equivalent of line of code in C but the fundamental p

> The difference between assembly and C is just that you need couple of instructions in Assembly to get an equivalent of line of code in C but the fundamental program structure is the same. This is absolutely not true, unless you turn off all optimizations. If you take that route you find that your C code is slower (sometimes orders of magnitude slower) than code written in other languages. C is less interesting without breaking the idea that "couple of instructions in assembly" == "a line of C code". Is also much less interesting without undefined behavior (which is what allows many of the optimizations that makes C "fast" and thus "closer to the metal" in many people's minds). I don't fully agree with the article, but I certainly think it is long past time for a new systems programming language that is safe-by-default. There is plenty of proof that we can define away most types of "undefined behavior", get many kinds of memory safety, while still providing escape hatches for situations where it really matters. Unfortunately we are still firmly in the "denial" phase with half of our industry arguing that C is just fine and dandy.