> The idea that it's impossible to write good, solid programs in any given language is ridiculous. The data disagrees. There's plenty of evidence that the seve

> The idea that it's impossible to write good, solid programs in any given language is ridiculous. The data disagrees. There's plenty of evidence that the severity of bugs and the number and severity of security bugs is far higher in languages like C or C++ than in memory-safe languages. > Only if you're writing bad programs. This is precisely the "just trust me bro" mentality I was referring to. "I write good programs, I swear!" But you're human, and you really don't. You make mistakes. Empirically, you make roughly as many mistakes per line as programmers in other languages, but the consequences of those mistakes are worse. You can argue with me all you want, but you're essentially arguing with reality. C has survived for legacy reasons, but almost everyone is desperate for a better, more robust alternative. Just so you know where I'm coming from - I learned C in the early 80s, not long after learning Fortran. I later started using C++ because it seemed to offer some benefits. But now - more than forty years later, when there are so many better alternatives for any given problem except one which requires legacy integration - it's astonishing to me that people are still staunchly defending C. It reminds me of what Max Planck said about physics: > “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”