The idea of memory-safe languages is in the news lately. C/C++ is famous for being the world's system language (that runs most things) but also infamous for being unsafe. Many want to solve this by hard-forking the world's system code, either by changing C/C++ into something that's memory-safe, or rewriting everything in Rust.
Forking is a foolish idea. The core principle of computer-science is that we need to live with legacy, not abandon it.
And there's no need. Modern C compilers already have the ability to be memory-safe, we just need to make minor -- and compatible -- changes to turn it on. Instead of a hard-fork that abandons legacy system, this would be a soft-fork that enables memory-safety for new systems.
Consider the most recent memory-safety flaw in OpenSSL. They fixed it by first adding a memory-bounds, then putting every access to the memory behind a macro PUSHC() that checks the memory-bounds: