Joshringuk

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by Joshringuk 1y ago

   I would agree for the most part but I found C3 to be a significant simplification over Zig. I struggled very hard with Zig but found C3 to be much more straightforward. Syntax wise it's different but philosophically it is quite similar
2. 2.▲
   by Joshringuk 1y ago

   @lerno is a ganedev himself so should be able to answer your question there Some links https://c3-lang.org/getting-started/ https://c3-lang.org/getting-started/design-goals/ https:/&#x2
3. 3.▲
   by Joshringuk 1y ago

   Yes the temp allocator will remove things at the end of it's scope. It makes it very clear when memory will be affected and gives predictable code execution. There are other contexts for managing mutex locks so they auto close and you
4. 4.▲
   by Joshringuk 1y ago

   You can define your own "built-ins" types and functions(!) so that should make it indistinguishable. You can also extend the standard Library from inside your own project, modules are open for extension
5. 5.▲
   by Joshringuk 1y ago

   True, C3 at least is one breaking release per year and between those there are non-breaking additions. It's quite common for a project to pin to a stable version so this doesn't seem too unpredictable.
6. 6.▲
   by Joshringuk 1y ago

   Standardisation of code and examples across codebases is a nice result of this too. This makes the code easier to learn and share
7. 7.▲
   by Joshringuk 1y ago

   I have found C3 to be a generally simpler experience than Zig, it's fun to use while being low level. The general approach is aiming to be easy to use, personally I often compare it to Go philosophically but with more similar use cases