Compare
Pick your fight, fairly.
Each of these pages is structured the same way: a paragraph of what the other language is good at, a table of grounded rows, and a verdict that says where each language wins.
fastC vs Rust
Rust has more safety machinery and a vastly larger ecosystem. fastC has structural answers to build.rs, capability typing, and compile-time budgets that Rust cannot retrofit without breaking its ecosystem.
fastC vs Zig
Zig wins on cross-compilation maturity and C-interop. fastC chooses capability typing and mandatory contracts over comptime as the wedge for agent-generated code.
fastC vs C
C is the language fastC compiles to. Every row here is something fastC adds on top: capability typing, contracts, runtime traps. C wins on ubiquity and toolchain breadth.
Read the comparison →fastC vs Go
Go wins on ergonomics, goroutines, and stdlib breadth. fastC wins on binary size (53 KB vs 2.4 MB), capability typing, and audit-by-disassembly.
Read the comparison →fastC vs Python
Python owns ML, data, and scripting; fastC does not compete there. The overlap is agent-written CLIs and services where you actually want a compiled, capability-scoped, single 53 KB binary.
Read the comparison →fastC vs TypeScript
TypeScript owns the web and tooling. fastC takes the native slice: types enforced at runtime, no GC, no Node runtime, and no npm postinstall in the dependency graph.
fastC vs C++
C++ wins on ecosystem, maturity, and template metaprogramming. fastC wins on memory safety by default, capability typing, fast builds, and refusing the undefined behavior agents write at volume.
Read the comparison →