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.

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?

@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.

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.