I&#x27;m sorry, but this line of argument is not even wrong as it relates to the <i>entire</i> modern infosec field, which is founded on the fact that there is no such thing as &quot;100% security&quot;; that is why concepts such as &quot;threat models&quot; and &quot;defense in depth&quot; exist.<p>Also, proving a program &quot;correct&quot; (for some definition of correctness that presumably includes &quot;secure&quot;) is undecidable, ergo there <i>cannot be</i> such a thing as a &quot;100% secure language&quot;. No, not even Erlang, nor Haskell, nor anything which is remotely close to Turing-complete. So <i>all</i> we can do is, in fact, decrease the attack surface.