Yes, but in Debug/ReleaseSafe it's much stronger than C with sanitisers. Zig makes those problems so much easier to catch in development than C. Zig doesn't have pointer arithmetic and pervasive casts, and all traversals require knowing the data's size either at compile-time (Zig arrays) or runtime (Zig slices). Unless you explicitly do unsafe casts, Zig won't allow you to index anything outside a buffers, and by that I don't just mean outside of allocated buffers, but even "sub-buffers" derived from them.
"Yes, but in Debug/ReleaseSafe it's much stronger than C with sanitisers."
Is it also stronger than C with Frama-C?
Are you sure you hit all the execution paths during development?
Pervasive casts?
Not under MISRA C.
Look, I'm not criticising Zig on a technical level (I mentioned above I'm keeping an eye on it because it looks interesting), but I don't have any trust in community driven languages keeping it simple (although Zig promises to do so, see link above).
But, 1. as much as I like formal verification and am actively involved in the space, we're talking less than 1% of C code that uses those tools (unfortunately), and 2. because Zig is so simple -- simpler even than C from a formal analysis perspective because of slices and casts -- if it ever becomes successful, I have no doubt we'll see such tools emerge.
Of course, the other 99% can't use Zig either because it's not even "out" yet. Obviously, a product that doesn't even exist yet can't replace any product that does, and no one is suggesting that Zig -- in it's current virtually nonexistent form -- is a replacement for anything, let alone for C. We're talking about what Zig could do when it exists in some production-ready form.
