One thing I just can't understand is proactively using the :: syntax. It's sooo ugly with so much unnecessary line noise. Just use a single period! I think one of the best decisions D made was to get of -> and :: and just use . for everything.

Recently gave this language a spin with raylib and libtmx for loading tiled maps. Out of C3, Zig, and Odin, I've had the least trouble integrating C libraries with C3 (rolled my own bindings for libtmx). Overall a big fan of the language and am hoping it gets recognition on the level of the other languages mentioned here.

How does this compare to Zig or Odin, which have the same goals of improving upon C and have gotten occasional publicity here on HN?

tbh I think one of the things I really liked reading through examples was the change in the switch/case behavior. I always thought implicitly falling into the next case was an awful design, and that a break is the more logical implicit behavior except in the case (no pun intended) of stacked empty case statements.

I do all my coding in Python, but if I ever find myself needing to reach for C again, I'll certainly consider this.

EDIT: Though is there a reason why "fn" is needed? I would think the AST builder would still be able to identify the beginning of a function definition without it, and as a programmer, I can identify a function definition easily.

@lerno, how do you feel about contributions to the standard library? For example, I might add BLAKE2 if it is not already implemented.

Also I just checked the source code of hash map. What if I want to use a different hashing algorithm for "rehash"?

There is no one true implementation of a hash table either, for example, so I am not sure what to do with that. I want a thread-safe hash table, I wonder if it would ever make it into the standard library.