Well, look; I replied initially because you're misrepresenting "I want fewer footguns" with "I don't care". The only question was whether you're doing it on pu

Well, look; I replied initially because you're misrepresenting "I want fewer footguns" with "I don't care". The only question was whether you're doing it on purpose or whether you really do think that there are zero programmers who want fewer footguns. As far as the C vs C++ thing goes, if your measure is "How many OPTIONAL features does a language give me WRT safety", then sure, C++ is optionally safer than C. If the measure is "How many extra footguns does the language provide", then no, C++ cannot, by any objective measure, be safer than C. Since you're constantly re-framing the discussion towards "More features" and away from "fewer footguns", I think it is safe to say that "extra footguns", for you anyway, doesn't mean "less safe". The way you constantly re-frame, though, reflects quite poorly on you - it's pretty obvious from the very first thread I am counting the footguns as the measure of how unsafe a language is. That's not an irrational measure, and yet you are willing to strawman the argument to make it seem irrational.