It's pointless discussing this. There is no perfect language and every programming language I've ever seen has design problems at one level or another. I know enough of CL, Pascal, Modula, Ada, Rust, Nim, etc., to know their weaknesses, too.
Your C example is also not convincing. Lisp and Algol were already strong contenders at the time. People chose C because they needed a fast and close to metal language to create their own operating system for mainframes. It was a hack just like your category 2. Still, it's a great language.
I don't see how the first implies the second. This is a programming forum; it's good to discuss and debate the specifics of these things.
C may not have been the best example of the category, but I think the category stands. Rust for example, much as I love it, is exploring uncharted territory. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now we have ownership-based languages that are much easier to use, simply because lessons will have been learned by that point. Arguably Java's OOP fundamentals are not as good as C#'s because Java had to explore that territory first (setting aside technicalities about what the term "OOP" really means). Etc.
The problem is that decades of experience has shown that only few programmers can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of programming languages for certain purposes in a halfway objective manner, and since few of them implement their own languages even the good discussions often remain fruitless.
I'll recommend Reddit's r/ProgrammingLanguages, as well as Scott's Programming Language Pragmatics as a reading instead. It's not fully up-to-date but I found the comparisons of features and their trade-offs in it fascinating.
Your C example is also not convincing. Lisp and Algol were already strong contenders at the time. People chose C because they needed a fast and close to metal language to create their own operating system for mainframes. It was a hack just like your category 2. Still, it's a great language.