If you did then I dont understand the point you're making with the given example.
with the language you've got
* the creators of C
* the developers writing software (tool/library/whatever) with C
* the users which use this software
If the software has a security issue, the cost will have to be born by the users, not the developers.
That makes it (imo) directly opposed to your argument, as its technically the same as with the carcinogenic substance
* the creators of the substance dont get cancer
* the contractors using it to build the house dont get cancer
* the people that live in the house get cancer
(but the people that use software written in C dont ... die, which is why I agree that its wrong to equate them)
I see where your confusion stems from. In the case of asbestos, it is the contractors using it to build the house who tend to experience adverse health effects, and not always the people who live there. Asbestos is harmless when it's inert in the wall, paint, etc. The danger is when you start doing construction / renovations and the dust is free floating.
So OP's point is correct. The two situations are not exactly analogous.
Well the creators of the substance (manufacturers who used asbestos in their products) and the contractors that installed the products did in fact also get cancer.
You're both a little bit wrong, and both want to be right, so seem to be ignoring the negative aspects of both your arguments.
C does not have a direct proven link to causing death or catastrophic disease like asbestos does, but any bugs due to language "allowing" the dev to shoot themselves in the foot is largely born by the users - at least initially.
As others said - asbestos is really bad for asbestos miners, and pretty bad for installers. But it’s pretty much totally inert when installed - it doesn’t affect homeowners.
Asbestos is killing mostly the contractors instead of the users, which is breaks the analogy here. (That being said, any argument using the “market failure” concept is dubious from the beginning)
with the language you've got
If the software has a security issue, the cost will have to be born by the users, not the developers.That makes it (imo) directly opposed to your argument, as its technically the same as with the carcinogenic substance
(but the people that use software written in C dont ... die, which is why I agree that its wrong to equate them)