It seems quite similar to Zig, including the error handling flexibility and memory management. But Zig also has a good concurrency story via its “colourblind” async/await support, although concurrency seems to not be a Hare design goal.
Is there something about Zig that rubs you the wrong way? Honestly, Hare almost seems like a Zig subset.
Edit: I respect your technical skills and sheer volume of output a lot so not trolling here, just trying to gain clarity after reading the language introduction.
Yes, I tried to work with Zig long before Hare was even an idea. I had hoped that Zig would fill the hole in the ecosystem that Hare is designed to fill, but ultimately I felt that I needed to write Hare. I think that Zig is far too complex and essentially unbounded in scope. A language to replace C needs to be as conservative as C, if not even more considering the coming changes from C2X.
how long has it been since you've checked it out. I'm no systems programmer and the drawing quality of the language to me was being able to jump into stdlib symbols and actually understand the code
Is there something about Zig that rubs you the wrong way? Honestly, Hare almost seems like a Zig subset.
Edit: I respect your technical skills and sheer volume of output a lot so not trolling here, just trying to gain clarity after reading the language introduction.