The problem is, when you say it's a C alternative, people will think "it's like C but better" but they expect it to act more or less like C, even considering the bad parts
(and it seems this is especially true in IT)
You tell people you built a chainsaw alternative the first thing they'll check if it still ruthlessly chops fingers off. I'm not kidding
TLDR; people think that a "C-alternative" means "used for what C is used for today". But that's not what the C alternatives (except for Zig) try to achieve.
(and it seems this is especially true in IT)
You tell people you built a chainsaw alternative the first thing they'll check if it still ruthlessly chops fingers off. I'm not kidding