> what you ask for is almost useless.

Why?

> man wcscat.

Yes, wchar_t. That's not UTF-8, which you can at least write legibly in literals. How do you plan to embed wide characters in a string literal? Give me an example of a wide string literal that contains: 双葉ちゃん

> You can use [] to index.

For wchat_t. Not for UTF-8. We keep coming back to problems with literals. And of course wide strings still aren't clean; they still have a null terminator.

> Do you honestly think bstring can run efficiently without you noticing in a embedded system?

Then use C 1.0 on your system. Let's just hold back the closest thing there is to portable assembly for that.

May I point out that embedded systems are pretty beefy today? Unless you're programming on a HC11 you have more computing power and memory than on my old 286, where Pascal did fine. This will increasingly be the case.

What platform are you writing to?

> I just measured it

What are you waiting for? The source for your test, please!

> You're an inexperienced C programmer and you're working on security systems. No wonder you think it's a good idea.

First, I don't work on C anymore. Not at work anyway. I would appreciate if you do not make any claims about my skill. Other than being crass, you don't know me.

My arguments will stand on their own merits.

> You think that the only possibility is being more careful

A strawman. I'm well aware that security is layered. But such simple buffer overflows are just one more pointless source of vulnerabilities, as have been demonstrates thousands upon thousands of time. We come back to my box with open ports analogy; there are local escalation exploits aplenty.

> And no, it isn't even remotely DHM-typing

I never said it was. Please read my post more carefully:

> It's a bit like a primitive form

Note the like.