While I understand the value in a small language that you can wrap your head around, I think that that is a relatively uncommon problem that real-world language developers shouldn't be catering to today (and C certainly isn't small or simple). These days, programs are simply expected to do more while not suffering from the kinds of security vulnerabilities that C code is so chock-full of. A lot of the solutions for these problems necessitate an increase in complexity.
I can understand that "you don't have to use any features if you don't want to" is somewhat silly when talking about C++, since it has so many features that can bite you when you least expect it, especially when dealing with years of legacy code. D is far better designed than C++, however; it would not take you nearly as long to learn enough D to be comfortable reading others' code.
All I'm trying to say is that "C, but without the problems" might actually look more like BetterC than you think it does. True zero-cost abstractions are clearly still an unsolved problem, but abstractions are a necessity. C's niche is rapidly disappearing.
Also, out of curiosity, what don't you like about Zig? I saw this on your website, but I couldn't find any specific issues you'd had with it.
> Wow, Zig is competitive with assembly?
> Yeah, I totally had the same reaction. I’m interested to see how it measures up under more typical workloads. People keep asking me what I think about Zig in general, and I think it has potential, but I also have a lot of complaints. It’s not likely to replace C for me, but it might have a place somewhere in my stack.
I can understand that "you don't have to use any features if you don't want to" is somewhat silly when talking about C++, since it has so many features that can bite you when you least expect it, especially when dealing with years of legacy code. D is far better designed than C++, however; it would not take you nearly as long to learn enough D to be comfortable reading others' code.
All I'm trying to say is that "C, but without the problems" might actually look more like BetterC than you think it does. True zero-cost abstractions are clearly still an unsolved problem, but abstractions are a necessity. C's niche is rapidly disappearing.
Also, out of curiosity, what don't you like about Zig? I saw this on your website, but I couldn't find any specific issues you'd had with it.
> Wow, Zig is competitive with assembly?
> Yeah, I totally had the same reaction. I’m interested to see how it measures up under more typical workloads. People keep asking me what I think about Zig in general, and I think it has potential, but I also have a lot of complaints. It’s not likely to replace C for me, but it might have a place somewhere in my stack.