I'm not saying C should die. Don't strawman me. But it should at least recede to a much more restricted role.
C should not be seen as a competitor to other languages. It's weaker than other languages. If you tend to think of all languages higher-level than assembly as horizontal, you'd probably benefit from Paul Graham's essay Beating the Averages (the relevant heading is "The Blub Paradox"). Simplicity is great, but there's such a thing as a feature that's worth it, and having a feature that's worth it is better than not having it. Outside of special cases, it is a mistake to code in anything but the most powerful language you know.
I'm coming to the opinion that kernels and interpreters are just about the only justifiable uses of C - where precise control over memory allocation is important. For anything else, the only real benefit of C compared to other compiled languages is performance. But for the vast majority of applications, the difference between a fast language and a very fast language is just not a priority. Most compiled languages are reasonably close to C on performance. And they can use and compile to C-compatible libraries.
Another advantage sometimes raised of C over more powerful compiled languages, like Rust, is compile speed. But which is worse, 3x compile time or 3x the bugs? And 3x the time to debug each one? And 1.5x the code?
I've heard some people on the internet describe C as "battle tested", as opposed to languages like "the experimental Rust". Sure, C is battle-tested. But has C won those battles?
Here's the Hacker News thread where that comment was made. The commenter is fair and points out in defense of the C haters that most of curl's security vulnerabilities were a result of C and wouldn't have been possible in Rust.
I think the same pattern is visible in most C projects. See the list of vulnerabilities in Apache 2.4.x and note how many of them are memory safety bugs. Even Heartbleed was due to a buffer over-read.
Something untested is better than something that failed the test.
It's actually very similar to how statists always say anarchy "has never been successful", despite that all forms of government, if their objective is to protect the freedom and safety of their people, have completely failed at every turn for all of recorded history.
Ian Barland has another article on this topic, and writes something I find particularly insightful: "C's prevalence has been responsible for the culture of thinking that bugs are acceptable."
Stop writing things in C that don't need to be. Don't write text editors in C. Don't write shells in C. Write things in languages that let you get things done.