It is a gargantuan endeavour tbh. I am writing safety C++ code for a living and still am undecided if it is a good idea to continue to do so. Safety benefits a

It is a gargantuan endeavour tbh. I am writing safety C++ code for a living and still am undecided if it is a good idea to continue to do so. Safety benefits a lot from understandability and that is undoubtedly better with simple code and a simple(r) language. Trying to keep the legacy code alive through compatibility introduces more than two languages in one, as all the combinations must be understood as well. Wrapping legacy code into bigger "unsafe" blocks and guarding the perimeter of that block is not a bad idea, it creates less mix to reason about. Would allowing only safe references in safety code really hinder adoption?