[patrick-ghetea]

To answer this follow-up, Benji, the syntax was designed so the learning curve isn’t too steep for people coming from languages like C/C++, even if I think that analogy is wrong, Riscrithm isn’t trying to be another C, as that would just be a cheap and worse copy. My goal is to allow people writing drivers or high-performance code to focus on structuring their logic without the compiler abstracting it into ambiguous implementations. Also, it’s great seeing you using a Pico; working with microcontrollers is fantastic, and I think it would be nice if you considered running Riscrithm on it—especially v1.1. Let’s be honest, v1.0 was an MVP, while v1.1 aims to bring all the features that will appear in v2.0, which will largely improve the compiler’s structure and make the language cleaner. I also appreciate your curiosity about what might emerge, and I want to assure you that I’ll do my best to make it a great language!

[benj111]

>Riscrithm isn’t trying to be another C

I was more just musing on the space around high level assembler/ low level programming language. Currently C is the option. So anything entering that space will be competing with C

[patrick-ghetea]

Hi Benji, I tried to reply to your comment earlier, but it seems it didn’t go through, so I’m trying again to say that you’re right. I hope you enjoyed exploring (and maybe even using) Riscrithm. My goal was to make writing assembly cleaner while still giving developers full control. Sure, C is the standard now, but I hope Riscrithm can offer a fresh perspective on low-level coding.