> ''"`memory safety''"` is not the point of C and never has been.

You're right, of course; sadly, people still use C to write software other than bootloaders and kernel memory managers, which C's "you figure it out" approach is an excellent approach to. Instead, you see command line utilities parsing configuration files and user input, all written in a language that lacks the modern standards for bug detection and program safety.

With the readability of C programs, criticism of Rust's admitted ugliness is a bit weird. C is a horrible language already, no need for Rust influences to make it any worse.

However, this isn't about "let's then C into Rust". This is "let's take one of the obviously good idea Rust brought to the mainstream and see if we can add them to C". In this example, by using attributes, which are already part of C.

If you like your memory safety bugs and buffer overrun vulnerabilities, nobody is mandating that you use these attributes. These suggestions are for other people to make their code better, not to take away your DOS system memory model.

Ahah, while I've done both C and Rust, I agree but I think you're a bit harsh.

I like to say that Rust reads like a beautiful dialect of Klingon.

If you read out loud a rust program with a Klingon accent and bang the desk with your fist at every lifetime, it will sound quite natural.

This post, more than anything, comes across as you being a C zealot.

I have written some moderately sized Rust programs without a single use of unsafe. As for macros... have you tried using C macros? Now that is ugly.

>C is a simple language used to model the low-level machine details in a more accessible way

If you have ever used C you should know that isn't true.