C and Rust both tend to be more sane than C++, though, so you can't just pin it on C++ being a systems programming language.
Agree with Rust, with C, only when people think they know C, but never opened a page of ISO C, or spent afternoons reading compiler manuals about language extensions and implementation specific behaviors.
I spent about two decades getting paid to write C before I learned Rust so I feel confident describing myself as an expert. It's true that C's abstract machine is a much stranger thing than many of its proponents believe - and that it's not very like any computer built this century so that the "portable assembler" claims are plain delusional, but I will say it's definitely less crazy than C++, more sane if you will.
This has become a bit less true in C17 and C23, but a lot of that is driven by the urge from WG21 (the C++ committee) to have WG14 (C language) do their work for them, hopefully some WG14 members will push back against that.
Agreed, now if WG14 actually cared about sensible improvements regarding strings and arrays.
As for latest ISO C revisions, not sure if it is doing any WG21 work other that the whole #embed drama, rather it looks to me pushing for a C++ without Classes, with a much worse design, e.g. _Generic.