The title is "Why I use C..." so the article being an account of the guy's journey using C seems highly appropriate.
If the author's reason is "because I can get the same features as Rust with much more effort" they've failed to justify it and thus that reading.
More importantly, it goes against the cargo cult narrative that the choice of programming language is the one and only factor determining memory safety, and consequently any use of languages such as C automatically leads to security issues.
It's not a coincidence that we have people in this discussion coping with that concept by spinning the use of frameworks focused on memory safety in C applications as somehow representing writing code in an entirely different programming language.
Despite the authors borderline obsessive efforts to write memory safe C code, it's interesting to note that his implementation of "bc" prominently contains a file documenting memory issues in previous versions. If that's what borderline obsessive gets you, how are us normies who are only programming to pay the bills, who have to work with other people who also just want to finish what they are doing or interact with blobs of code written by other people with less exacting standards supposed to write memory safe code?
If you wanna write your hobby programs in C because you think it's fun, then fine, you do you. But this seems like a pretty good indication that basically no C written by anyone can realistically be truly safe.
It's a framework. It's a set of C macros and C code. It's not a new language. Please stop.
> The final reason is the only one that justifies my decision: my code will be rewritten in a memory-safe language.
> No, it won’t be Rust. It’s my own language. It’s called Yao.