I don’t follow - are you asserting that, by contrast, the greatest programmers in the world can write bug-free single-threaded code?
But stopping to use C is a good start (for whoever has the choice)!
Not as toy, proof-of-concepts. Fully fledged replacements for all that stuff that can be used in our our daily work. Build distros of the stuff so that we don't have to pick and choose this stuff and replace the bits of our systems in a piecemeal fashion.
They could show us how it's done instead of talking endlessly about it in online forums. So let's face it, it's never going to happen.
As for managed code, it's being used with huge success in a lot of places (not in OS-es or drivers, yes) but that's quite the huge topic by itself.
I'm not defending C, I'm merely sneering at its noisy detractors who spend more time complaining about it than supplanting it.
Perhaps as the Rust community grows in size and momentum this will happen more. Right now it seems like a bit of a manpower problem.
Note the section 1.7 in your own link ("End of the Lisp machines"). The Lisp software ecosystem was never as rich, broad and varied as the C/C++ software ecosystem is today, before it died.
BTW, I only stumbled across your comment by accident, since you replied to the parent poster instead of me. Parenthesis mismatch?
Cheers.
It's perfectly fine to continue using an existing C codebase for a program, not exposed to the public internet, that's maintained by a focused group of maintainers. But on the other side of this spectrum, for large exposed projects like OpenSSL, Chromium, or even Linux, C/C++ has become risky.