Rust dev says that C is complex and hard to write

Once on a sunny day, I stumbled upon a video that lies over the internet ready to be watched:

• Python, Rust and Why You No Longer Need C

From the video above, the first thing Rust dev said is that C is hard to write. Keep in mind, Rust dev said C, not C++. Rust dev didn't refer C as C/C++, heck Rust dev even shows a glimpse of an icon that looks like a C language logo, I wonder, so it is clear that Rust dev is referring to C and not C++.

Easy memory management with C

Well, it seems that managing memory by yourself is a hard task when it is not.

I don't quite understand why the majority of developer thinks that manual memory management is super hard.

Was it all about dangling pointer? You might free the memory too early. Or maybe was it buffer overflow? You can just check if the last element on the array has null pointer or not? If not then just simply add one.

I don't see where the hard part is, you don't even need object-oriented paradigm thing, just use switch case. How about function chaining? Just prefix functions corresponding to the same "struct" with the struct's name.

Take an example:

#define ARRAY_CAPACITY_INITIAL 64

typedef struct array_t {
    int *data;
    int cursor;
    size_t capacity;
} array_t;

array_t *array_init()
{
    array_t *arr = malloc(sizeof *arr);
    arr->data = malloc((sizeof *arr->data) * ARRAY_CAPACITY_INITIAL);
    arr->cursor = -1;
    arr->capacity = ARRAY_CAPACITY_INITIAL;
    return arr;
}

bool array_is_empty(array_t *arr)
{
    return arr->cursor <= -1;
}

void array_cleanup(array_t *arr)
{
    free(arr->data);
    free(arr);
}

I didn't test this code, didn't write it with LSP on, I didn't even try to compile it, and I bet this runs just fine. How simple of C could you ever want? Shouldn't this be an example powerful enough showing how easy and simple C could be?

What other excuses do you have? I don't write C all day, yet I know what to expect.

The example above does not have functions to actually write to the array, that is an easy simple task:

void array_grow(array_t *arr)
{
    arr->capacity += ARRAY_CAPACITY_INITIAL;
    arr->data = realloc(arr->data, (sizeof *arr->data) * arr->capacity);
}

void array_push(array_t *arr, int val)
{
    if (++arr->cursor > arr->capacity)
        array_grow(arr);

    arr->data[arr->cursor] = val;
}

int array_pop(array_t *arr)
{
    /* do whatever you want
     */
    if (array_is_empty(arr))
        exit(1);

    return arr->data[arr->cursor--];
}

So, where is the hard part? All you have to do is check every edge case. I didn't check if realloc() would fail, I also didn't check if malloc() would fail, why? Simply just because I want the software to exit out, crash? I don't care, you as the developer could create an if guard to prevent things like that from happening.

Was C hard to write because it does not have built-in data types like Linked List, Array, Stack, Hash Table, etc?

I'd agree if one says that C++ is hard. It's ironic because C++ already have shit ton of built-in data types, although the real reason is because of classes.

C is not comparable to Rust

C is at another level, Rust is nowhere near C. However, you can compare Rust with C++. Because Rust is identical to C++ and not C. It is Sept 2023, and I have yet seen a language that could compete with C's simplicity.

Getting back to the video, there might be a confusion here, it seems that Rust dev isn't actually Rust dev, but a Python dev. No one has ever compared Rust with Python. If you have, you should become web dev instead.