(note: the original comment has been rewritten) > If you read deeper into the post I did skim the entire post, but the discussion on supporting alternative co

(note: the original comment has been rewritten) > If you read deeper into the post I did skim the entire post, but the discussion on supporting alternative computer architectures was significantly shorter than the issue of memory safety, or Rust or Zig as languages. > Also, those arguments were made plenty by others, so I didn't feel a need to rehash them much. Fair enough. BTW, I agree with you that generating portable C is actually an interesting solution. Recently, there are a few successful projects like HACL* (Microsoft) [0], Fiat-Crypto (MIT CSAIL) [1] that are based on this idea - they use a high-level framework to synthesize human-unreadable but formally verified C code, effectively using C as a form of portable assembly. Both have been deployed in real-world systems like OpenSSH, Chromium and the Linux kernel with great success. [0] https://github.com/project-everest/hacl-star https://github.com/project-everest/hacl-star [1] https://github.com/mit-plv/fiat-crypto https://github.com/mit-plv/fiat-crypto