I feel like you are missing the point. Using glibc in avionics software is insane, as is any other application software library. In other words, it’s asinine to pretend C is somehow more reliable because it’s used in safety critical applications. There simply isn’t anything in common with the C running on your servers and the C running on an avionics package.
I don't run servers much, I mainly write for critical applications (a decade writing for geophysical airframes, telling pilots where to go and where the pylons are when 80m off the deck for millions of line kilometres, lot's of other stuff going back a long way).
> Using glibc in avionics software is insane,
As I said above .. there's no need for glibc et al.
> I feel like you are missing the point.
We seem to be in agreement here.
> In other words, it’s asinine to pretend C is somehow more reliable because ...
What most people call "C" is (preprocessor) + (actual language) + (stdc function library).
What I call C (and hey, maybe that's just me) is just the language component, the "below the fold" library spec in the ANSI Std is easily disregarded .. it's more of a dated "proof of concept" of (for example) one of many ways of handling strings.
C is a nice language - the preprocessor and stdlib have issues.
> As I said above .. there's no need for glibc et al.
Christ, I wrote it as an absurd notion in the first place. This is honestly like writing “go ahead and wear underwear on your head” only to have someone tell repeated tell you that isn’t necessary. Well, no shit.
