[pornel]

Another aspect is that the majority of projects that keep using C, do it specifically to maximize performance or low-level control (codecs, game engines, drivers, kernels, embedded).

For such projects, a GC runtime goes against the reason why they used C in the first place. Rust can replace C where Fil-C can't.

A technically memory-safe C with overhead is not that groundbreaking. It has already been possible with sandboxing and interpreters/VMs.

We've had the tradeoff between zero-overhead-but-unsafe and safer-but-slower languages forever, even before C existed. Moving C from one category to the other is a feat of engineering, but doesn't remove the trade-off. It's a better ASAN, but not miraculously fixing C.

Most projects that didn't mind having a GC and runtime overhead are already using Java, C#, Go, etc. Many languages are memory-safe while claiming to have almost C-like performance if used right.

The whole point of Rust is getting close to removing the fast-or-safe tradeoff, not merely moving to the other side of it.

[pizlonator]

There are so many programs written in C or C++, but not in any of the languages you cite, that run just fine in Fil-C.

The thing that is interesting about Fil-C isn’t that it’s a garbage collected language. It’s that it’s just C and C++ but with all of the safety of any other memory safe language so you can have a memory safe Linux userland.

Also, Fil-C isn’t anything like ASAN. ASAN isn’t memory safe. Fil-C is.

[blub]

Many people know and like C. Many companies have access to plenty of C talent, but no Rust talent.

These are two great reasons to try Fil-C instead of Rust. It seems that many Rustaceans think in terms of their own small community and don’t really have a feel for how massive the C (or C++) universe is and how many different motivations exist for using the language.

[array_key_first]

I agree, but the converse is also true and is where the value of this DARPA grant lies:

There's a lot of legacy C code that people want to expand on today, but they can't because the existing program is in C and they don't want to write more potentially unsafe C code or add onto an already iffy system.

If we can rewrite in Rust, we can get safety, which is cool but not the main draw. The main draw, I think, is you now have a rust codebase, and you can continue on with that.

[pjmlp]

Many project do keep using C out of cultural and human reasons as well, they could have long written in a memory safe language, but goes against their world view, even when proven otherwise.