Despite my usual rants, naturally C23.

Minimal rewrite due to the breaking changes introduced in C23 versus K&R C, while the others are a complete rewrite.

Even if the syntax is a bit of a kludge there are now ways to indicate bounds on function arguments.

You mention there that you like Ruby and that you wanted Ruby with types (and that you looked at Crystal).

I've been messing around with a language that I summarize as:

ALOE = Scheme + Smalltalk + Types

https://github.com/dharmatech/2026-09-02-aloe-racket

One of the examples is a very basic computer algebra simplifier:

https://github.com/dharmatech/2026-09-02-aloe-racket/blob/ma...

That simplifier is based on a computer algebra library in Scheme:

https://github.com/dharmatech/mpl

>https://github.com/Syzygies/Compare

You might want to take a look at Odin as well.

No D-lang? It seems quite incomplete without it.

Middle may be wrong (it is a marketing trick to add 3rd outragesly expensive option, to make 2nd option look reasonable). The correct answer is “it depends” (even how long you should spend on choosing may depend on context too).

For example, write in whatever language you know best, then translate to a more appropriate language using LLMs once the desired behavior can be checked automatically. It is a tactic that works in some cases.

who's your audience? who will read/use it?

If you’re C suite, ignorant and stupid and don’t know what you’re doing which choice minimises your chance of screwing up? The above is an analogy for that situation.

If you’re not stupid it fails because you can find out and then make an informed decision. An informed decision will dominate the suggested strategy in terms of chances of not screwing up.

This really should be obvious.

(In the analogy, your phone has an automatic translator and you use it).

Note that I have made no argument for one language over another.