Rust has libcore, which is, in many ways, more featureful than libc despite also having zero dependencies. From my perspective, the main advantage of C is the way in which chip manufacturers only provide (poorly supported/bug-ridden) C compilers, but this is likely to become less important as ARM takes over more and more of the world: it is only getting easier and cheaper to throw a full ARM chip into a device, due to economies of scale.
There are engineers with 20 years of C programming experience that will still make security errors while handling basic strings. "Small" does not mean "good" and "learning" a language doesn't mean you'll write good code with it.
No, small is good. But C isn't small. It's actually massive, and not terribly orthogonal. It's peppered with special cases, and things people think but aren't actually true (how would you check for an integer overflow in C?).
It's like comparing x86 to, say, m68k (or most things, really). One was designed. The other is an ungainly mess of hacks on top of hacks, which has a good, elegant design in there somewhere, desparately trying to get out. Guess which one is x86.
Now guess which one is C.
Worse really is better. Or at least, good enough.
C isn't a complete mess, and you can write good code in it if you're very careful, but it's not great.
