There are languages like that: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/checked-c/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/checked-c/ They are

There are languages like that: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/checked-c/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/checked-c/ They are doomed to fail. You get all the downsides of not-C with all the downsides of C. You still pay the cost of losing compatibility with standard compilers, and people with IBM/360 are still mad at you. You still pay the cost of learning borrow-checker-like semantics, and have to convince others to learn your unpopular language. But you get very little in return. It's still C with its old warts. Whenever safety is the only thing you gain, there's a ton of people like Drew who will tell you it's stupid, because "C can be safe", we've been trying for only 40 years, so it's too soon to give up. Rust attracts people who need safety, but they stay for the sum types, error handling, hygienic macros, and rich ecosystem.