>>21
The shitty stdlib plagues C. C isn't a nice language to use if you can't even use its own "built-in" so to speak strings which are non-Unicode, non-binary-safe, O(n) strlen bullshit with no library to work with. It's not bad for low-level processes, as long as by that you mean a portable assembler to micromanage byte alignments (which is done through hordes of messy hacks, typedefs because its types suck, compiler options and gotchas). As for array bound checking, sometimes it's useful to access elements that are out of bound for what? Ugly hacks and ugly hacks alone.
C should be limited to portable assembly, operating systems and magic glue when no other thing will do; no serious application should be written in it.
>>22
And the exposure of pointers is yet another of C's shitty features.
>>24
Yeah, whatever. C code is the source of most of today's exploits.