Post:
If youâre still shipping loadâbearing code in C, C++, Python, or vanilla JavaScript in 2025, youâre gambling with house money and calling it âexperience.â
As systems scale, untyped or footâgunâheavy languages donât just get harder to work withâthey hit a complexity cliff. Every new feature is another chance for a runtime type error or a memory bug to land in prod. Now layer LLMâgenerated glue code on top of that. More code, more surface area, less anyone truly understands. In that world, âweâll catch it in testsâ is wishful thinking, not a strategy.
We donât live in 1998 anymore. We have languages that:
- Make whole classes of bugs unrepresentable (Rust, TypeScript)
- Give you memory safety and concurrency sanity by default (Rust, Go)
- Provide static structure that both humans and LLMs can lean on as guardrails, not red tape
At this point, choosing C/C++ for safetyâcritical paths, or dynamic languages for the core of a large system, isnât just âold school.â Itâs negligence with better marketing.
Use Rust, Go, or TypeScript for anything that actually matters. Use Python/JS at the edges, for scripts and prototypes.
For production, loadâbearing paths in 2025 and beyond, anything else is you saying, out loud:
âIâm okay with avoidable runtime failures and undefined behavior in my critical systems.â
Are you?
Comment:
Nonsense. If your code has reached the point of unmaintainable complexity, then blame the author, not the language.


True, but youâre not gonna be setting the access levels or doing anything else with control registers on a Correx-M in pure C, let alone boot to a safe state with zeroed registers.
Yeah, if your bootloader is expected to handle that youâre going to need assembly. That can also be delegated to the kernel, RTOS, or bare metal reset vector later on in the boot sequence, though. I had to write a bootloader for an embedded system like this once and it basically just applied firmware updates, validated the firmware, and handed control over to the firmware.
Youâre just describing more components that are written in C and assembly.
My point is that assembly isnât strictly required. You can do memory-mapped reads and writes from C all you want, which is enough for plenty of I/O: storage, serial, sensors, GPIOs⊠You can build quite a few things with these without touching system registers.
Iâm not saying we should abolish assembly. Just that it isnât a universal requirement.
My point is that thereâs still gonna be some somewhere. Youâre just trying to handwave it away because somebody else wrote it.
Not necessarily. Letâs say thatâŠ
_entry(), with a linker script to take care of its memory placement.You can compile only your C source file that defines
_entry()and interrupt vectors, then flash the resulting firmware. No assembly involved, no external linkage, and no stdlib required.Yes, and this is ignoring interrupts, access privileges, thread stacks ⊠whatâs the C equivalent of the MSR and MRS instructions?
Again, those arenât universally required. You can make an embedded device that reads the ambient light levels and turns on an LED when itâs dark without thread stacks, privileges, or interrupts. Donât make your system more complicated than it needs to be.
Turning on an LED when itâs dark doesnât require a microcontroller, let alone a Cortex-M. You can accomplish that with analog electronics.
Anyway, youâre moving the goalposts all over the place. What happened to the RTOS kernel from earlier?