Not all programming languages are equal when it comes to the skill needed to deliver correct software. Since a large project necessarily can expect only to bring merely ordinary skill to the problem if that's not enough they're in trouble, even if superlative skill would have succeeded that's not what they have.
C++ iterators are a big example of this problem. In the most skilled hands these are a very powerful technology, excellent performance yet tremendous flexibility - but they have a lot of footguns. So do you choose to accept the high defect rates when your ordinary programmers shoot themselves in the foot, or do you neuter this powerful technique to reduce those defects but suffer significant performance problems ?
>C++ iterators are a big example of this problem. [...] but they have a lot of footguns.
Bigger than coding in assembly?
>when your ordinary programmers shoot themselves in the foot
Then don't hire non-name foot shooting programmers off the street. Hire versed engineers with background in programing for safety critical systems, then have them train the code monkey engineers on the right way to think and work. Like I said, skill issue, not language issue.
C++ iterators are a big example of this problem. In the most skilled hands these are a very powerful technology, excellent performance yet tremendous flexibility - but they have a lot of footguns. So do you choose to accept the high defect rates when your ordinary programmers shoot themselves in the foot, or do you neuter this powerful technique to reduce those defects but suffer significant performance problems ?