> The compiler is a dead simple translator who doesn't play funny tricks behind my back.
When did you last look at the assembly your compiler produces at O2 or higher? Because decades of C compiler development would very much like to disagree with that statement.
> As others have mentioned on this thread, together with "cppcheck", "valgrind", "electric-fence" and friends it is also as secure as any other.
Where do all the memory safety problems in any nontrivial C or C++ codebase come from then? Do you think that for example the Chrome team is just incompetent? It is certainly possible to write safe C, but that involves _a lot_ more effort than using valgrind. You could for example write MISRA-C. Together with extensive manual checking those rules lead to fairly save C, but the effort needed is really big.
When did you last look at the assembly your compiler produces at O2 or higher? Because decades of C compiler development would very much like to disagree with that statement.
> As others have mentioned on this thread, together with "cppcheck", "valgrind", "electric-fence" and friends it is also as secure as any other.
Where do all the memory safety problems in any nontrivial C or C++ codebase come from then? Do you think that for example the Chrome team is just incompetent? It is certainly possible to write safe C, but that involves _a lot_ more effort than using valgrind. You could for example write MISRA-C. Together with extensive manual checking those rules lead to fairly save C, but the effort needed is really big.