New programming language: C2, an evolution of C

http://c2lang.org/site/

Looks like Go, so no.
Also,

The NULL macro, has been replaced by the nil keyword.

No thank you.

affiliated with c2wiki?

lol

Their chart doesn't have any languages that aren't based on C.

Oh god, he just did a big poo-poo and called it a language without bothering to read any programming language theory.

func i32

Yeah, haha, how cool! This is exactly what C was missing!!!!
No thank you!

List of languages that were made by people who have not even read SICP: http://c2lang.org/site/
Feel free to add new entities.

No size_t, I also noticed that he uses i32 for indexes. This is truly a language from 1970! Just as they tried to be.

Reminds me of vala back in the time where they compiled to C.

Its just a sepples-based frontend for LLVM.
Its not an independent language.

>>2-10
SPAWHBTC

Using a

.txt

file extension for the build file gives off a red flag for me. It's not objectively incorrect but feels like the authore has no idea what is happening around him.

Bro look at this dude uhu uhu wait till you see the f... uhohohoho no no NO NO.. OH HA HOH
ohhhHOHOoooo.... ARHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AAA LOOK AT THE TOP OF HIS CODE HRHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
LOOK AT HIS SITE HASHHHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHH

Someone who doesn't understand the reason for some of the few reasonable choices in C reinvents it badly and tacks a few GCC extensions and Sepples things on. Pretty much the only change that isn't pointless or actively harmful is the part about modules.

At first I wanted to ask why things like these happen so often, but after a while I remembered a post about Unix and C from a while ago (it might even have been a Naggum post on Usenet) that makes the reason very clear. It claimed that Unix shit is so popular because it is so obviously broken that people see it and think: ``I can fix this!'', thereby leading another poor soul to its doom creating another Unix developer. Anybody can look at C and find something stupid that is easy to fix — now try this with a language like Common Lisp. Not only does it often already have your great idea but better, but when it doesn't, the idea usually wasn't very great to begin with and rooted in some misunderstanding about the language or programming. inb4 dead dog

RIP Erik Naggum

I made an even better version. It's called C3.

>>17
I prefer C4.

C5 is the real shit

>>1
Lemme guess: the author doesn't understand header files and thinks the preprocessor must be erased at all costs (instead of being fixed), just like any other nu-C does ("Those damn pointers and preprocessor are so hard to understand!!")?!?

Also:

Language changes
[..]
* All global variables are initialized by default

...REALLY? Oh yeah right, because they're called static and not global in C or what?

* All global variables are initialized by default

Same for C though..

>>20,21
Reminds me of the GNOME version of free whose only ``difference'' was that free(NULL) was defined. Shows you how competent these pioneering Redhat luminaries are.

>>22
You and the GNOME devs haven't even read da standard

The free function causes the space pointed to by ptr to be deallocated, that is, made available for further allocation. If ptr is a null pointer, no action occurs.

>>23
That's my point. They ``fixed'' a problem that didn't exist, yet think they are qualified to write a better standard library for applications.