@newt @diresock

> The problem is undefined behaviour as a concept.

The spec has to stop somewhere; it's fine if it explicitly says "We're not specifying what happens in this case".

> Alas, we have a new language, incompatible with C.

No, not any more than the early C programs were "incompatible with C". The early programs don't conform to C23, they use pre-ANSI declarations; this is different from saying they're not C. C23 doesn't decide what C is, it decides what's in C23, compiler writers can say "It conforms to C23" or "It conforms to C99" or "There's a flag to make the compiler conform to C10 or ANSI-C". Saying it's "a different language from C" is absurd. There are plenty of languages that aren't standardized at all, but they definitely exist.

> Nim or Zig

I don't know about Zig, Nim seems fine as a language but my only interaction with it was very basic stuff and then getting its dipshit tooling to properly compile Nitter and reading some of the Nitter code. Those are fine; I care about C, and would like them to stop fucking up the specs and I do not plan to use terrible compilers so if compilers I have used are becoming terrible, that is a problem, because I plan to continue writing C.