[mjg59]

Ok you're still missing the point. This isn't about C being good or bad or suitable or unsuitable. It's about whether it's good that C has, through no deliberate set of choices, ended up embodying the interface that lets us build rust that can be called by go.

[drnick1]

Yes, because C is, by virtue of its history and central role in the development of all mainstream operating systems, the lowest common denominator.

Also, if I remember correctly, the first Rust and Go compilers were written in C.

[mjg59]

Yes! It's easy to see why we got here, but that doesn't mean it's the optimal outcome!

[pjmlp]

Rust used OCaml, and Go only used C, because it was partially created by the C authors, and they repurposed the Plan 9 C compiler for Go.

Usually it helps to know why some decision was taken, it isn't always because of the technology alone.

[zorobo]

OCaml was used for rust.

[Ygg2]

> Yes, because C is, by virtue of its history

Sure history is great and all, but in C it's hard to say reliably define this int is 64-bit wide, because of the wobbly type system. Plus, the whole historical baggage of not having 128-bit wide ints. Or sane strings (not null terminated).