> Nope, you can very much make them safer. It might not make them the "safest" it can be, but it can totally make them safer. This one might come down to confl

> Nope, you can very much make them safer. It might not make them the "safest" it can be, but it can totally make them safer. This one might come down to conflicting definitions of "safe". The author seems to define safety purely in relation to the number of language features with which you can contrive to shoot yourself in the foot. You seem to also take into account the number of language features you can use to make it harder to shoot yourself in the foot. I think there's some value in both definitions. The author's perspective captures a lot of what worries me about languages like C++. But it also fails to give C++ any credit for all the language improvements that have materially improved the overall quality of most C++ code over the past couple decades.