[epolanski]

Sure, but considering that Zig is a modern C alternative, one should not and cannot afford to forget that C has been successful also because it stayed small and consistent for so long.

The entire C, C ABI and standard lib specs, combined, are probably less words than the Promise spec from ECMAScript 262.

A small language that stays consistent and predictable lets developers evolve it in best practices, patterns, design choices, tooling. C has achieved all that.

No evolving language has anywhere near that freedom.

I don't want an ever evolving Zig too for what is worth. And I like Zig.

I don't think any developer can resolve all of the design tensions a programming language has, you can't make it ergonomic on its own.

But a small, modern, stable C would still be welcome, besides Odin.

[dnautics]

I'm pretty sure the point of aggressively evolving now is to have to basically not evolve it at some point in the future?

[pjmlp]

> The entire C, C ABI and standard lib specs, combined, are probably less words than the Promise spec from ECMAScript 262.

Not if you look into C23, include all the compiler extensions devs keep thinking are part of ISO C, and the "C ABI" is one per each existing OS written in C.

[uecker]

C23 did not increase a lot. The core language spec is also very small. Extensions are also often relatively simple, but most importantly, one does not have to use them. ABI is usually not per OS but per architecture.

[bbkane]

Besides Odin? Does Odin give you most of this?