Why does a language even allow dereferencing nil? Many languages make this impossible. If you anyway go and design a new language, why stay stuck in the old ways and carry that flaw with you?
Let me explain. Conceptually, a pointer is an optional reference. Either it's nil or it references some object. (That reference may be valid or not, but that's a separate topic.) Optionals have been well understood in the programming language community for a long time. Many modern languages get them right, usually with some form of what Haskell calls the Maybe monad. May sound intimidating, but the gist is that in order to unwrap the thing inside, you pattern match on its structure. It's either Nothing or it's a value. You can't even syntactically talk about the wrapped thing outside this pattern matching. With such a construction, "dereferencing nil" is not a thing. You either have a pointer (optional reference) which needs the unwrapping, or you already did unwrap, then you have a non-null-pointer (non-optional reference). So, a language can easily encode all this in its type system without runtime overhead.
When inventing a new language that fixes flaws of C, why not fix this one as well?
I'm actually with you on the ease of use. I don't see this as the opposite to safety. To me, making it harder for me to make mistakes means it's easier to use. That is, easier to use right and harder to use wrong. I'm not a Rust or Ada advocate. I'm just saying that making it harder to make the same mistakes people have been doing for decades would be a good thing. That would contribute to ease-of-use in my book since there are fewer things you need to think about that could possibly go wrong.
Or are you saying that a certain level of bugs is fine and we are at that level? Are you fine with the quality of all the software out there? Then yes, this discussion is probably not for you.
That's great! Let the compiler figure out the optimal data layout then! Of course the architecture is relevant. But does everybody need to consider L2 and L3 sizes all the time? Optimizing this is for machines, with very rare exceptions. Expecting every programmer to do optimal data placement by hand is similar to expecting every programmer to call malloc and free in the right order and the correct number of times. And we know how reliable that turned out.
> Thank you for telling me you have no idea why people want or need to use a systems-level programming language.
> And yes, I explicitly asked for a language: "Is there a language that already exists that is closer to what you want?", which means you reading comprehension isn't very high.
Really? Two insults packaged into two paragraphs? Was that really necessary? It's possible to discuss technical disagreements without insulting others.
I'm doing systems-level programming every day, some of it involves C. It provides me with the perspective from which I'm expressing my views. There are other views, thankfully, and a discussion allows to highlight the differences and perhaps provide everybody with a learning opportunity. That's what I'm here for.
Obviously I saw that you asked for a language and I replied to that. I separated the concrete answer to avoid getting things mixed up with the more general point.
I'm totally with you that it's useful knowledge. One of the main differences between a Youtube/bootcamp trained programmer and a university-CS-educated software engineer, though either "side" has outliers too.
But there is a fine line between having general understanding of the details of what's going on inside your system and using that knowledge to do very much premature optimizations and getting stuck in a corner that is hard to get out of. Large parts of our industry are in such a corner.
It's fun to nerd out about memory allocators, but that's not contributing to overall improvements of software engineering as a craft which is still too much ad hoc hacking and hoping for the best.
"Often enough" is what's introducing the risk for bugs here.
I "often enough" drive around with my car without crashing. But for the rare case that I might, I'm wearing a seatbelt and have an airbag. Instead of saying "well I better be careful" or running a static analyzer on my trip planning that guarantees I won't crash. We do that when lives are on the line, why not apply those lessons to other areas where people have been making the same mistakes for decades?
And you were perhaps asking about programming languages. Python does not model objects as bytes in physical memory. Functional languages normally don't. That all has consequences, some of which the "close to the metal" folks don't like. But throwing the "but performance" argument at anyhing that moves us beyond the 80s is really getting old.
Real world example. You go sit in your ICE car. You press the gas pedal and the car starts moving. And that's your mental model. Depressing pedal = car moves. You do not think "depress pedal" = "more gasoline to the engine" = stronger combustion" = "higher rpm" = "higher speed". But that's the level those C and C-like language discussions are always on. The consequence of you using this abstraction in your car is that switching to a hybrid or lately an EV is seemless for most people. Depress pedal, vehicle moves faster. Whether there is a battery involved or some hydrogen magic or an ICE is insubstantial. Most of the time. Exceptions are race track drivers. But even those drop off their kids at school during which they don't really care what's under the hood as long as "depress pedal" = "vehicle moves faster".
Then why not just require explicit initialization? If "performance" is your answer then adding extra optimization capabilities to the compiler that detects 0 init would be a solution which could skip any writes if the allocator guarantees 0 initialization of allocated memory. A much safer alternative. Replacing one implicit behavior with another is hardly a huge success...
> Why has nobody come along and created an alternative standard library yet?
Because people are so terribly opinionated that the only common denominator is that the existing thing is bad. For every detail that somebody will argue a modern version should have, there will be somebody else arguing the exact opposite. Both will be highly opinionated and for each of them there is probably some scenario in which they are right.
So, the inability of the community to agree on what "good" even means, plus the extreme heterogenity of the use cases for C is probably the answer to your question.
As long as programmers view a program as a mechanism that manipulates bytes in flat memory, we will be stuck in a world where this kind of topic seems like a success. In that world, an object puts some structure above those memory bytes and obviously an allocator sounds like a great feature. But you'll always have those bytes in the back of your mind and will never be able to abstract things without the bytes in memory leaking through your abstractions. The author even gives an example for a pretty simple scenario in which this is painful, and that's SOA. As long as your data abstraction is fundamentally still a glorified blob of raw bytes in memory, you'll be stuck there.
Instead, data needs to be viewed more abstractly. Yes, it will eventually manifest in memory as bytes in some memory cell, but how that's layouted and moved around is not the concern of you as the programmer that's a user of data types. Looking at some object attributes foo.a or foo.b is just that - the abstract access of some data. Whether a and b are adjacent in memory should be insubstantial or are even on the same machine or are even backed by data cells in some physical memory bank. Yes, in some very specific (!) cases, optimizing for speed makes it necessary to care about locality, but for those cases, the language or library need to provide mechanisms to specify those requirements and then they will layout things accordingly. But it's not helpful if we all keep writing in some kind of glorified assembly language. It's 2025 and "data type" needs to mean something more abstract than "those bytes in this order layed out in memory like this", unless we are writing hand-optimized assembly code which most of us never do.
Let me explain. Conceptually, a pointer is an optional reference. Either it's nil or it references some object. (That reference may be valid or not, but that's a separate topic.) Optionals have been well understood in the programming language community for a long time. Many modern languages get them right, usually with some form of what Haskell calls the Maybe monad. May sound intimidating, but the gist is that in order to unwrap the thing inside, you pattern match on its structure. It's either Nothing or it's a value. You can't even syntactically talk about the wrapped thing outside this pattern matching. With such a construction, "dereferencing nil" is not a thing. You either have a pointer (optional reference) which needs the unwrapping, or you already did unwrap, then you have a non-null-pointer (non-optional reference). So, a language can easily encode all this in its type system without runtime overhead.
When inventing a new language that fixes flaws of C, why not fix this one as well?