&gt; You&#x27;re basically saying that everyone just needs to be a top 0.001% C programmer.<p>A more constructive&#x2F;charitable phrasing of the parent&#x27;s point might be: you should only <i>be allowed to</i> code in C if you&#x27;re <i>already</i> a top 0.001% programmer. Then, obviously, all C code will be good—not that there&#x27;ll be much of it.<p>That&#x27;s actually a more interesting point than it seems. Programmers generally tend to reject the idea of guilds and &quot;professional&quot; licensing—mostly because, AFAIK, most programs aren&#x27;t critical and most crashes don&#x27;t matter. But what if, instead of licensing <i>all</i> programming, we just licensed only <i>low-level</i> programming? What if, as a rule, everyone who was going to be hired to write code in a language with pointers was union-mandated to be certified as knowing how to safely fiddle with pointers? That could probably split on interesting dimensions, like a bunch of regular coders working in e.g. a Rust codebase, with a certified Low Level Programmer needing to &quot;sign off on&quot; any commit that contained unsafe{} code, where the actual failure of the unsafe{} code would get the Low Level Programmer disbarred.