From: bc@freeuk.com   
      
   On 15/10/2025 02:13, BGB wrote:   
      
   > Apparently the languages people are trying to push as C replacements are   
   > mostly Rust, Zig, and Go.   
   >   
   > None of these particularly compel me though.   
   >    They seem more like needless deviations from C than a true successor.   
      
   So what would a true successor look like?   
      
   >   
   >   
   > I guess the older generations mostly had Pascal and Ada.   
   >   
   > There was ALGOL, but both C and Pascal descended from ALGOL.   
      
   I've heard that before that C was somehow derived from Algol and even   
   Algol 68.   
      
   But it is so utterly unlike either of those, that if it's from the same   
   family, then it must have been adopted.   
      
      
   > As noted elsewhere, my thinking is partly that pipeline looks like:   
   >    Preprocessor (basic or optional, C like)   
   >    Parser (Context-independent, generates ASTs)   
   >    Front end compiler: Compiles ASTs to a stack IL.   
      
   > Backend:   
   >    IL -> 3AC/SSA;   
      
   That's odd: you're going from a stack IL to a 3AC non-stack IR/IL?   
      
   Why not go straight to 3AC?   
      
   (I've tried both stack and 3AC ILs, but not both in the same compiler! I   
   finally decided to stay with stack; 3AC code *always* got too fiddly to   
   deal with.   
      
   So stack IL is directly translated to register-based, unoptimised native   
   code, which reasonably efficient. Performance is usually somewhere in   
   between Tiny C and gcc-O2.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)