http://samusev.pp.ru/texts/safe_c_programming.html

safe

The only safe C is abstinence.

>>1

Safe C programming[br]Yegor Samusev

Shalom!

Safe C programming exists and is called ATS:
http://www.ats-lang.org/

fun fibats
{n:nat} (n: int n)
: [r:int] (FIB (n, r) | int r) = let
fun loop {i:nat | i <= n} {r0,r1:int} (
pf0: FIB (i, r0), pf1: FIB (i+1, r1) | ni: int (n-i), r0: int r0, r1: int r1
) : [r:int] (FIB (n, r) | int r) =
if ni > 0 then
loop {i+1} (pf1, FIB2 (pf0, pf1) | ni - 1, r1, r0 + r1)
else (pf0 | r0)
// end of [loop]
in
loop {0} (FIB0 (), FIB1 () | n, 0, 1)
end // end of [fibats]

ATS looks like obfuscated brainfuck.

>>5

That is one ugly syntax!

>>2

Is there a morning after pill equivalent for C programming?

The only thing on that list that's absolutely unsafe to use is gets. If you're too stupid to know whether the size of your output can exceed the limits of its buffer you shouldn't be using the language. People who are too dumb to figure out whether it's safe to use the non-truncating form of these functions are frequently also too dumb to determine the correct length to pass to the truncating form.

The real problem that needs addressing is why you're using C strings in the first place.