[v_iter]

So, the point of this language is to be able to write code with high productivity, but with the benefit of compiling it to a low level language? Overall it seems like the language repeats what ZIG does, including the C ABI support, manual memory management with additional ergonomics, comptime feature. The biggest difference that comes to mind quickly is that the creator of Zen-C states that it can allow for the productivity of a high level language.

[messe]

It has stringly typed macros. It's not comparable to Zig's comptime, even if it calls it comptime:

    fn main() {
        comptime {
            var N = 20;
            var fib: long[20];
            fib[0] = (long)0;
            fib[1] = (long)1;
            for var i=2; i<N; i+=1 {
                fib[i] = fib[i-1] + fib[i-2];
            }

            printf("// Generated Fibonacci Sequence\n");
            printf("var fibs: int[%d] = [", N);
            for var i=0; i<N; i+=1 {
                printf("%ld", fib[i]);
                if (i < N-1) printf(", ");
            }
            printf("];\n");
        }

        print "Compile-time generated Fibonacci sequence:\n";
        for i in 0..20 {
            print f"fib[{i}] = {fibs[i]}\n";
        }
    }

It just literally outputs characters, not even tokens like rust's macros, into the compiler's view of the current source file. It has no access to type information, as Zig's does, and can't really be used for any sort of reflection as far as I can tell.

The Zig equivalent of the above comptime block just be:

    const fibs = comptime blk: {
        var f: [20]u64 = undefined;
        f[0] = 0;
        f[1] = 1;
        for (2..f.len) |i| {
            f[i] = f[i-1] + f[i-2];
        }
        break :blk f; 
    };

Notice that there's no code generation step, the value is passed seamlessly from compile time to runtime code.

[thomasmg]

I wonder, how can a programming language have the productivity of a high-level language ("write like a high-level language"), if it has manual memory management? This just doesn't add up in my view.

I'm writing my own programming language that tries "Write like a high-level language, run like C.", but it does not have manual memory management. It has reference counting with lightweight borrowing for performance sensitive parts: https://github.com/thomasmueller/bau-lang

[jhgb]

C is literally a high level language.

[afreire]

It has autofree and drop traits.

[johnisgood]

Nim is a high-level language as well and compiles to C.

[the__alchemist]

Odin and Jai are others.

[kuon]

I am working on mine as well. I think it is very sane to have some activity in this field. I hope we will have high level easy to write code that is fully optimized with very little effort.

[echelon]

There are going to be lots of languages competing with Rust and Zig. It's a popular, underserved market. They'll all have their unique angle.

[pjmlp]

I has been served for several decades, however since the late-90's many decided reducing to only C and C++ was the way going forward, now the world is rediscovering it doesn't have to be like that.

[forgotpwd16]

They're are certainly going to be lots of languages because now with LLMs it's easier (trivial?) to make one + library (case in point: just within last month there're have been posted here ~20 new langs with codebases 20k~100k LOC) but don't really see them competing. Rust and Zig brought actual improvements and are basically replacing usecases that C++/C had limiting the space available to others.

[imtringued]

Uhm, no? There is barely enough space for Rust, which happens to have a unique feature/value proposition that raises it above the vast majority of its competitors. If you're fine with UB or memory unsafe code, then you go with C simply because its deeply entrenched.

In that sense Zen-C changed too many things at once for no good reason. If it was just C with defer, there would have been an opportunity to include defer in the next release of the C standard.