Saying that Java is safe therefor you can write safe C is not actually sensible. The JVM is a virtual machine that runs user's programs, and those programs are

Saying that Java is safe therefor you can write safe C is not actually sensible. The JVM is a virtual machine that runs user's programs, and those programs are in a memory safe language. That doesn't mean the JVM is memory safe... at all. It's like saying "llvm is in C++, and llvm is used to compile Rust, therefor C++ is as safe as Rust". It's just not a tractable argument. As for the rest of your post, sure, you can create a new revision of C/C++ that's memory safe - feel free to do so. It'll basically be a new language, but that's fine and has nothing to do with the parent's point, which is that we should incentivize memory safety - they didn't say it had to be a new language. As for why people don't take that approach, it's because: it'll be a massive breaking change, so it's really no different from a completely new language. If you're going to create a completely new language you may as well take the time to fix a bunch of other issues while you're there. edit: The above applies to libraries too. There are libraries that enforce stronger security in C++ (I want to say... IronC++? Something like that), and it basically ends up being, give or take, the cognitive overhead of a new language, but with the added bonus of no one actually using it. > From a security perspective creating a new language reduces security because it will never have been as thoroughly vetted as the old languages. This is unsubstantiated, and I highly doubt it is the case.