It was a partial motivation. Many have stars in their eyes seeing C as best-designed system language to the point that modifications aren&#x27;t considered for bare-metal. One motivation is countering that with cold-hard truth about its alleged design and real history. Other people already see its issues but might want to learn more or enjoy the full context. This re-enforces the move away from such features where possible along with providing evidence to deliver in future conversations supporting that. Either benefit is a fine result to me.<p>&quot;What astonishes me is how something which seems a crude plagiarism became the mainstream of low-level and fast for so long. Even UNIX ...&quot;<p>Richard Gabriel explained that well in his Worse is Better essays. Hence why you see me mention it a lot. Has much to do with ease of participation, economics, and group dynamics. Things like C, UNIX, and early OSS made it easy to get started to gain a critical momentum. Past that, it&#x27;s basically all momentum and its effects. One usually can&#x27;t counter momentum so much as create an alternate momentum or divert flows off the existing momentum. Hence, co-development of radical approaches like SAFE or JX OS&#x27;s plus legacy-supporting approaches like Nizza Security Architecture or Cambridge CHERI processor &amp; CHERIBSD. Yet, the full momentum of UNIX and C remain as more gets piled onto them despite the cost.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dreamsongs.com&#x2F;WorseIsBetter.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dreamsongs.com&#x2F;WorseIsBetter.html</a><p>Note: Ignore his emotional rants tied to specific tech to focus on the effects of the New Jersey approach on market take-up. Truthfully, I think he discovered the time-to-market effect of technology and a method of achieving it before it became a common thing people wrote about. Then again, I haven&#x27;t studied the history of <i>that</i> enough to be sure.