> it is also not necessarily the best way to reduce bugs I think this needs to be more specific. Comparing Rust and C, for instance, it seems complexity can be

> it is also not necessarily the best way to reduce bugs I think this needs to be more specific. Comparing Rust and C, for instance, it seems complexity can be used to improve correctness; the tradeoff is worth it at least some of the time. It seems to me the best example of a simple correctness-oriented language isn't Zig, it's Ada SPARK, which has been used in various life-critical software systems. [0] SPARK's advantages are due to its simplicity: * The whole language has been defined formally (zero ambiguity) * The language is amenable to formal verification A monstrously complex language like C++ brings many features, but is much harder to reason about formally, and will never have a formal definition. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_(programming_language)