fastC

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.

all-in-one Want the five-language matrix in a single table? Show all in one table →
  • fastC vs Rust
    The obvious comparison.
    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
    The closest in spirit.
    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
    The baseline.
    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.
  • fastC vs Go
    The GC'd alternative.
    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.