[baranul]

Arguably, what you describe, is closer to what C2 was/is[1]. By the way, C2 is still alive, for those that care to look.

C3 (link[2]) is a fork of/inspired by C2, which appears to have incorporated a lot of Odin and Jai "flavoring". In the case of both C3 and Odin, it can be argued that part of their popularity is that Jai isn't publicly released. Consequently, they seem to pull in a lot of the crowd, that would be attracted to Jai. Another aspect of this, is the more C3 promotes itself (whether intentional or not), the more likely C2 will get faded out. Many will likely think C3 is the next iteration of C2 or simply know the name more, because pushed on HN and other social media.

[1] https://github.com/c2lang/c2compiler

[2] https://github.com/c3lang/c3c

[lerno]

Isn’t it a somewhat unfair characterization that ”C3 promotes itself more” and ”is pushed on HN and other social media” and that because of this C2 for some reason experiences harm?

C2 is over 11 years now. C3’s recent breakthrough this last half year is unlikely to have had much impact on its ability to grow the last 10 years.

[baranul]

This thread literally meets the definition of self-promotion. So no, don't think the characterization is unfair.

If your programming language had a different name, then I would agree, but it doesn't. Many will assume that C3 is the next iteration of C2 and that it's outdated, despite the fact that C2 is still in development.

[lerno]

I asked and got Bas's[1] permission to use C3 as a name when I first started out.

[1] Bas van den Berg, the author of C2.