Why is that? C is still widespread in embedded and often the only choice. A lot of programs are written in C and need to be maintained. C is a simple language and powerful when used correctly. Of course we want people to keep using it.
https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/Rust-is-not-a-good-C-repl...
"Safety. Yes, Rust is more safe. I don’t really care. In light of all of these problems, I’ll take my segfaults and buffer overflows."
"I understand that many people, particularly those already enamored with Rust, won’t agree with much of this article. But now you know why we are still writing C, and hopefully you’ll stop bloody bothering us about it."
The problem is that when you write a program in C for the public, this program's buffer overflows and segfaults aren't a problem only for you, but also for everyone around you. Security vulnerabilities are a serious problem. You can think of them as a form of software pollution: "Safety. Yes. Asbestos is unsafe. I don't really care. In light of all the these problems with fiberglass, I'll take my lung cancer and expensive structure remediation".
See what I mean? We all have an interest in secure software, and the aesthetic preferences expressed in the article to which you've linked have to take a back seat to ecosystem robustness and information security.
Unfortunately, this pro-C cowboy attitude is entrenched in this industry. It's going to take a lot of retirements to move us forward.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
While the Rust definitely is way more helpful than C, when it comes to writing secure code. I'd argue that generally the following holds:
It's not possible for humans to write correct and secure code on an ongoing and consistent basis.
This in my ears echoes the understanding that humans aren't fully rational creatures, we just convince ourselves we are most of the time. So it would follow that we wouldn't be able to write secure (i.e. rational in its own context) code consistently.