The way I see it, it's for people who want a more modern C, but not C++.

There's not much languages in that space, essentially C3 and Zig, but the former is much less advanced IMHO (also in terms of tooling).

▲

user____name a day ago | parent | next [-]

C2 is still in development [0] and in my opinion sticks most closely to C in spirit. It seems like the best way to modernize a C project incrementally because it sticks most closely.

I haven't tried any of these languages though, I genuinely enjoy writing dumb-as-bricks C despite all the downsides. Call it Stockholm Syndrome or whatever.

[0] http://c2lang.org/site/introduction/evolution/

▲

scuff3d 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Odin

▲

Galanwe 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't count Odin as a modern C, because it is IMHO too different syntaxically to fit that description.

▲

scuff3d 2 days ago | parent [-]

I disagree. Maybe in syntax it's a bit different but in spirit I think it's absolutely a modern C. Purely procedural code and manually memory managed. On top of that Ginger Bills stated goal for the project is to basically grind down all the rough edges off C.

Plus if you look at something like Zig, it syntactically starts to drift a lot as well. They left behind C's "use matches declaration" approach (thank God), capture groups look like nothing in C, function definitions are entirely different, the list goes on.

	▲	Galanwe 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, Odin is admittedly vastly different from C in terms of syntax. It's not like you can pick it up knowing C, it feels like a different language. The author even states that Odin started as a Pascal clone, and was more influenced by Pascal than C. > The language began as a Pascal clone (with begin and end and more) > The language borrows heavily from (in order of philosophy and impact): Pascal, C, Go, Oberon-2, Newsqueak, GLSL.