However, in a topic about Odin, Hare, or Go, I think the comment was germane. These languages value simplicity as a stated goal, and whatever one thinks of the position of C on the simplicity scale, I’d like to think that it is a valid consideration in language comparisons.
I will certainly acknowledge a subjective basis for defining and assessing ‘simplicity’ in PL design, but I can not put a language as complex as Rust in a bucket with C, Odin, Go, or Hare. The syntax, semantics, and implementation issues associated with ad-hoc polymorphism alone take it into another strata.
I am obviously aware of who I’m talking to and that you would certainly be the person who would know plenary of dev’s from any number of backgrounds happy to have replaced C with Rust. So I’m not trying to imply or say that it doesn’t happen. But there is a difference in working in Rust (happily, preferably, or otherwise) vs C, and in compiling a list of language similar to C. I took the question to hinge on similarity (in at least the complexity characteristic, if not the syntax or type characteristics), while I think you looked at it as a question about valid or preferable replacements for development.
Finally, I’m sure it was personal preference and philosophy that led me to assume complexity characteristics were inherently at issue in the GP post’s request for a list. You were certainly correct to point out it is a pretty narrow POV.