"Faster than C", I saw people write C code slower than a Python equivalent. So I have to admit, I don't know what it means for a language to be fast, because it depends on the algorithm being implemented and the developer who writes the code.
---
"simpler than Python", what does "simple" mean?
Simple design? Python's design is very complex (take a look at "Crimes with Python's pattern matching" < https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/python-abc/ > for example), on the other hand, assembly languages, or Lisp, or Forth, have a very simple design.
Simple as in "easy to use"? Rust is easy, write code, fix what the compiler tells you you did wrong. Joke aside, Go is quite easy to use and while I personally don't like this language, I get why it replaced Python in a lot of use cases.
Also, once you get used to the OTP framework, Erlang/Elixir/Gleam/any beam language are quite easy to use and have less footguns than Python.
---
"safer than Rust" is too vague. Is it memory safety? type safety? thread safety? cosmic ray safety? A mix of all of that?
Let's guess you meant "memory safety". All languages with a Garbage Collector are "memory safe".
It's a language inspired by Erlang/Elixir (same concurrency model) that compiles to Rust code (the runtime use tokio). It is immutable, have no Garbage Collector thanks to Rust semantics, and dynamically typed.
I haven't run any benchmark (it's not even finished, I've been working on the specification before continuing the implementation), but I guess it could be slower than a rock.
---
For some recommendations, have you looked at Zig? Nim? Hare?
Everything happening in a non-JIT-ted Python program is the action of compiled C code, so if a C program is slower, that just indicates that the C program is going out of its way to waste resources.
---
"simpler than Python", what does "simple" mean?
Simple design? Python's design is very complex (take a look at "Crimes with Python's pattern matching" < https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/python-abc/ > for example), on the other hand, assembly languages, or Lisp, or Forth, have a very simple design.
Simple as in "easy to use"? Rust is easy, write code, fix what the compiler tells you you did wrong. Joke aside, Go is quite easy to use and while I personally don't like this language, I get why it replaced Python in a lot of use cases.
Also, once you get used to the OTP framework, Erlang/Elixir/Gleam/any beam language are quite easy to use and have less footguns than Python.
---
"safer than Rust" is too vague. Is it memory safety? type safety? thread safety? cosmic ray safety? A mix of all of that?
Let's guess you meant "memory safety". All languages with a Garbage Collector are "memory safe".
---
On a semi-unrelated note, I've been working on https://letlang.dev
It's a language inspired by Erlang/Elixir (same concurrency model) that compiles to Rust code (the runtime use tokio). It is immutable, have no Garbage Collector thanks to Rust semantics, and dynamically typed.
I haven't run any benchmark (it's not even finished, I've been working on the specification before continuing the implementation), but I guess it could be slower than a rock.
---
For some recommendations, have you looked at Zig? Nim? Hare?
https://ziglang.org/ https://nim-lang.org/ https://harelang.org/
reply