[notacoward]

I like the general idea, but the result seems just as full of garbage as C++. Remember the first time you saw a lambda declaration in C++? That sequence of familiar-seeming characters to mean something totally different probably threw you a bit. I know it did me. C-for-all's constructor/destructor syntax reminds me of that.

  // bonus doc bug: "with" hasn't been introduced yet
  void ^?{}( VLA & vla ) with ( vla ) { // destructor

The syntax for redefining ++ or -- (which already seems spurious) is even more opaque.

  S & ?+=?( S & op, one_t )

Other features, like left-to-right declaration syntax and postfix function calls, seem to have no use except to make one programmer's code harder for another programmer to understand. Then they throw in the rest of the kitchen sink, with all of C++'s overloading and polymorphism and inheritance plus both kinds and traits. The result is even more complex and even more surprising (in a bad way) to actual C programmers than C++ or for that matter APL. If not for the absence of templates, I'd say Cforall's complexity is a strict superset of C++'s.

If I wanted a direct C replacement with minimal improvements, I'd try D or Zig. If I wanted a systems programming language that had more differences but fewer surprises, Rust or Nim. The last thing I'd want is something that's both more baroque (rococo?) and less known than any of those.