For me, I don't really look at Odin as a successor/fixer of C. There are other languages that can make a better case for that[1][2]. Instead, I look at it more like a successor/fixer of Pascal. It doesn't fall down the OO hole that so many others did. It has type casting, dynamic arrays, parametric polymorphism in both functions and data structures, is much less noisy (and in my opinion far more skimmable), more useful built-in primitive data structures like associative arrays and matrices, custom allocators, function overloading, reflection, etc.

You can find odds and ends of these things in other Pascal successors like Delphi, Oberon and Object Pascal. Truth is though, I never found these languages compelling. Why? Because none of them were anywhere close to being the same kind of simplicity as Pascal, and they were too wrapped up in flashy, trendy things that went out of style. Where Odin wins out is that it distinctly lacks the 90's OO craze hangover, and it never feels particularly more complicated or bloated. It's an audaciously tasteful proposition for a language. A C replacement? No, not really. But as a C++ programmer who's fed up with the lack of things like structure introspection and ergonomic sum types, I'm keeping a very close eye on Odin.

[1] - https://c3-lang.org/

[2] - https://harelang.org/

> Delphi, Oberon and Object Pascal [..] I never found these languages compelling. Why? Because none of them were anywhere close to being the same kind of simplicity as Pascal

Agree. Oberon comes close, but has other orthodoxies like upper-case keywords, and it lacks the low-level support of e.g. Delphi. I spent a lot of time with extending Oberon, but backward compatibility prohibited some features I thought were necessary. My forthcoming Micron language is this kind of "better Pascal" you mentioned; essentially it's an Oberon withouth orthodoxies and with the power of C (without its disadvantages); there are language levels from minimal, stack-less systems with static only memory, up to OOP and optional garbage collection. See https://github.com/rochus-keller/micron/.*

Odin really hits the sweet spot for everything you would want from a language for the game dev and game-dev-adjacent space in terms of simplicity, convenience, and speed. I think a major design decision of the language that will make or break it for users is the fact that the language gives you common features instead of giving you the means of abstraction to make those features yourself. For example, instead of preprocessor macros you get the `when` clause for conditional compilation because in Bill's estimation, that's one of the only real needs for macros. The same goes for data structures. Odin gives you the certified classics like dynamic arrays and maps but doesn't give you a whole lot to make your own custom data structures (it's possible, just not encouraged by the language design). All in all, I think if you want to make an application with a language that has batteries included and you don't need a lot more than that, Odin is nearly flawless.

> but doesn't give you a whole lot to make your own custom data structures

For anyone unfamiliar with Odin that might misinterpret this, Odin has structs and parametric polymorphism for those structs. What it does not have is operator overloading or methods (which also means no constructors or destructors). In this sense, its product types are like ocaml's, only without methods too. Odin is not object oriented.

FWIW, another take on "C Alternative" is the D programming language:

https://wiki.dlang.org/Tutorials

Comparatively mature, there's even a freeware book which is quite good:

http://www.ddili.org/ders/d.en/index.html

Walter Bright, the creator of D, is an active commenter here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=WalterBright

Zig is also worth mentioning, and pops up frequently.

Once, on a previous account, he actually replied to me. It's like a kid going to guitar center and the guy who replaces your strings is Axl Rose.

If you're on here, Walter, you're my hero. I also once interacted with Brendan Eich, who I admire as much for his role in web history as for his activism.

I always thought it was more akin to a C++ than a C alternative, and reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_(programming_language) seems to rather confirm this notion:

  "originated as a re-engineering of C++"
  "influenced by Java, Python, Ruby, C#, and Eiffel"
  "design by contract, ranges, built-in container iteration concepts, and type inference"
  "array slicing, nested functions and lazy evaluation."
  "Java-style single inheritance with interfaces and mixins"
  "function overloading and operator overloading"
  "supports five main programming paradigms" (including OOP)
  ... et cetera

Though it does support things like in-line assembly and the like, I'm sure most C programmers would pass on it, as a C-alternative, based on those factoids.

D was never a C alternative, it was a C++ alternative.

^ and this person (no affiliation) has a much "truer" C alternative in the making, just for everyone's information: https://c3-lang.org/

Haven't gotten around to trying it out, but skimmed the documents a lot at one point. Always try to keep tabs on it, doesn't get the love it should.

Doesn't having a whole subset of the language called "Better C" qualify?

As a completely incidental observation (and maybe related to the article from a few days ago considering the importance of language skills compared to math skills for software development), I'm interested in what people choose to capitalize when developing languages. With c, lowercase seems to be the default, signifying variables or function calls. Adding inheritance in c++ leads to Proper Nouns like classes being capitalized, while their instances are often lowercase. This communicates a subtle "feel" for the language, meta information about what's being accomplished.

Capitalizing method calls (`rl.InitWindow()`) seems to place the importance on the Method being called, but at first glance (ASP, or Go off the top of my head) it muddies the waters. If this isn't clear, consider that capitalizing ALL code would reduce clarity as all letter shapes are now essentially the same (a box).

I spend most of my time in c, c++, ruby, and javascript, but maybe I should try to do a personal project in Go (or Odin) for this reason alone.

I believe most of this is language designers picking their personal preference and then that percolating down through history.

The original UNIX folks really love lowercase. Executables are lowercase, most file names are lowercase, file extensions are, etc. That extends to C where DMR and Ken Thompson chose lowercase names for keywords, built-in types, and standard library functions. If I remember right, Thompson uses all lowercase in most of his communications too, so I suspect it comes from him. Or maybe it was a flex because the PDP-11 could do lowercase when some other early computers didn't support it at all?

The early Pascal compilers from Niklaus Wirth and friends appear to be all caps, probably because that's all the machines supported. The language itself generally isn't case sensitive. (I say "generally" because there are many flavors of Pascal.)

When Anders Hejlsberg created Turbo Pascal (which is also case-insensitve), he introduced a convention of lowercase for keywords what we now call PascalCase for function and type names and (judging by the Wikipedia article) a mixture of PascalCase and camelCase for variables.

Perhaps because Straustrup built on C but is a Dane like Hejlsberg, he picked a mix for C++: camelCase function and variable names with PascalCase type names.

These conventions then flowed down through time. Java was heavily inspired by C++ and takes the same convention. C# is another Hejlsberg creation and follows his preferences. JavaScript follows Java. (It must annoy Hejlsberg to no end that his third baby TypeScript breaks with his own convention.)

In this case, I believe the capitalization is a hold-over from raylib's c library, Odin doesn't appear to put any preference?

In Go it has a specific meaning: starting an identifier with a capital causes it to be exported for use in other packages. Identifiers with a starting lowercase char are package private.

Apologies if this is explaining what you already know...

I've started experimenting with Odin for some personal projects and it's been great. The built-in vendored libraries make creating certain programs trivial. For example, just `import rl "vendor:raylib"` and you can use `rl.InitWindow(800,600,"Test")`. No need to install Raylib, add to path or use special linker directives, just `odin build .`!

Also I think Odin struck the right balance of features while trying to keep to the spirit of C.

Odin seems to strike a really interesting balance between simplicity and practicality, especially for game development. I like the idea of having “batteries included” without too much abstraction getting in the way. For those who have used both Odin and Go, how do you feel about the differences in day-to-day development? Are there any features in Odin that you wish Go had, or vice versa? Would love to hear more real-world experiences!

I mean, the biggest difference is that Go has a GC and Odin doesn't. And each's ecosystem reflects that... In practice they're simply not used for the same types of software.

> This is the polar opposite of Zig’s embracing of metaprogramming for as much as possible.

I found this claim a bit strange. do people actually use metaprogramming in Zig a lot?

Isn't all sorts of stuff metaprogramming in Zig? Generic types, vtable interfaces, printf. All use comptime to generate code.

I can't comment about everyone, but I use it a lot for building libraries and such. I just recently built a database ORM, but since their metaprogramming is used for their generics I've run across it a lot just for those case.

IMO it's one of Zig's advantages over C (text substitution macros are both too powerful and not powerful enough). If you're using Zig without metaprogramming, you're leaving a useful (if advanced) tool on the table.

C's preprocessor not being powerful enough is less a problem with text-substitution macros, more that they're not allowed to expand recursively which was an intentional design choice. There are some hacks you can do to get around it, and people have done cool things[1] within the limited space those hacks grant you, but there's a reason many C projects with extensive metaprogramming just use an external macro language (which is also just text-substitution).

IMO AST Macros are an even bigger problem than text substitution. Debugging metaprogramming of any kind past a certain point of complexity is a royal pain in the ass (even in a Lisp, Forth or Prolog), but AST explorers are next to useless for complicated logic problems that involve needle in a haystack searches of side effects. If you're dealing with a large AoS of heterogeneous SoAs which influence each other to shuffle around, and most of the related code and the structures themselves are generated via AST macros, you better be really comfortable with assembly analysis and debugger scripting.

[1] - https://github.com/Hirrolot/datatype99

Depends on the project, the general recommendation is to use metaprogramming like salt: just a pinch to add some flavor. Newcomers sometimes go bonkers with it though.

I am currently limiting myself to 500 lines of (particle engine) code while listening to visual artists talking about their workflow in UE5 or Houdini, and Odin+Raylib are lovely to work in.

GingerBill has shouted out Go, but Odin doesn't particularly feel like a Go flavo(u)r.

To point out something that is a fail: I don't want to hear about how you simulated 10M particles on the GPU without acceleration forces.

been playing around with odin and honestly the ease of getting started feels way better for me than most c-like stuff ever has. you ever think these smaller pain points keep more folks from switching than big technical features?

I like odin a lot, however, there are two things that just don't stick with me, and i ended up quitting:

- RTTI: just give me compile time type introspection and let me disable RTTI without making the language unusable

- when/import: just let me wrap an import inside a when block, being forced to split my file in 3 made me quit the language

Can't comment on RTTI, but lack of conditional imports are indeed an annoyance but I'm willing to put up with it because of all the other niceties in the language.

A C alternative means a language that will last for 50 years, whereas this seems more like "whatever's popular by way of LLVM". I can see some real smart stuff coming out of languages like Zig and Rust, where Odin seems just to follow along.

Seems needlessly harsh and also misplaced in some way. Zig is super non-ergonomic to any C-developer, and its explicitness at all costs is also non-C-like (meaning a rather big shift for someone actually liking C). Rust is a completely different beast altogether.

Odin is a rather simple, performant, pragmatic, procedural language, fixing especially things in C with regards to its type system and infrastructure (such as packages), adding niceties such as `defer` while being at it. I, as a C programmer, have it far higher up my list of languages to try than Zig or Rust by a rather large margin.

btw: "C alternative means a language that will last for 50 years" seems a snide that could be applied to any language less than 20 years old? I'm not sure what that's concretely meant to criticize here? Is Zig more a 50-year language than Odin, if so how? Odin is used for rather serious commercial products at JangaFX btw: https://jangafx.com/ and is quite beloved by some people using it.