[flohofwoe]

Rust, Go, Swift, etc... are like super-tankers compared to those small "better-C" languages. IMHO, having a number of small languages that can be learned in an afternoon is much better than yet another super-tanker designed by huge consensus-driven committees/communities that try to do everything for everybody.

[carlmr]

Rust has safety and zero-cost abstractions at it's core, they provide a by now quite stable interface. You can't just move fast and break things. You need to stabilize at some point or it's impossible to use it in real world projects that are also commitments of a certain kind. And for that stability you need some kind of consensus of what to work on and what not to do.

I think the primary value of these new toy languages is they can explore aspects freely that can't just be explored in a more mature language. Sometimes after a concept has proven useful a mature language might be willing to incorporate it.

But I wouldn't use them on a serious project, because there will probably be few libraries and maybe no long term support for it.

[bendmorris]

These are valid concerns, particularly stability and long term support. Availability of libraries applies less to Kit or Zig thanks to first-class interoperability with C. I think this is the way forward for small new languages; you can avoid the challenge of creating an entire ecosystem for your language, and just fit it into an existing one.

[eriktate]

I'm surprised that you would lump Go in as a "super-tanker" language. I find it incredibly small and simplistic when compared to something like Rust. I think it actually has fewer keywords than C.

[renox]

Go the language OK but Go rely on a GC which required lots of work..