> We designed Hare to be similar to C, and useful everywhere C is useful
Except under proprietary operating systems. It's really not that difficult to compare Hare with C. C works everywhere, Hare doesn't. It's disingenuous to compare languages that aren't even close to the same portability level. C, Rust and Zig can be used to implement any imaginable piece of software, from desktop to server on almost any architecture and operating system. Hare is a niche language for Linux services, so I don't think anyone had any doubts Hare would not replace C.
Yes, except for proprietary operating systems. However, as vast as the gulf is between Hare and Zig/Rust in terms of portability, far vaster is the gulf between both of those and C. It's disingenuous to compare any of these languages with C in terms of portability, as C is by a wide margin the most portable language of all time.
Unlike LLVM, adding a new backend for Hare is a relatively straightforward effort: riscv64 was done by one person in a few months and is only 1,476 lines of code.
And again: the answer to the question posed by the blog post's title is "no".
Is C necessarily more portable than Rust? I think not. Of course, you can target any arch under sun with C _right now_. Rust does not have this yet, but you _could_ do so no problem if you wanted to.
The same argument can be made of Hare, but the reality is that closing the portability gap between C and any other language is a monumental undertaking which will take decades to complete.
Except under proprietary operating systems. It's really not that difficult to compare Hare with C. C works everywhere, Hare doesn't. It's disingenuous to compare languages that aren't even close to the same portability level. C, Rust and Zig can be used to implement any imaginable piece of software, from desktop to server on almost any architecture and operating system. Hare is a niche language for Linux services, so I don't think anyone had any doubts Hare would not replace C.