"An allocator needs to chop up and slice a larger block of memory and give different segments to different callers. You cannot do this if something is enforcing

"An allocator needs to chop up and slice a larger block of memory and give different segments to different callers. You cannot do this if something is enforcing bounds." Sure you can -- if the enforcement of array boundaries is based on types, and is not applied when dealing with a generic, low-level pointer type. Take a look at the implementation of SBCL (a Common Lisp compiler) to see this sort of thing in action. Yes, building abstractions is the right thing to do, but libraries are the wrong way to do it. The problem with libraries is that the programmer needs to expend their mental energy on using the library, and needs to remember to not just use what the language provides them. If anything, the programmer should be forced to use a library to avoid bounds checking -- extra effort should be required to do dangerous things, rather than to be safe. "the languages don't force you into paying that cost." Neither do high-level languages, if you can guarantee that the cost does not need to be paid (and if you are using a half decent compiler). If your compiler can deduce that your array index cannot be out of bounds, it should generate code without a bounds check. That is why Lisp has type hints, and it is one of the arguments you hear in favor of static type checking.