> Go is a better C already

It’s not. Garbage collection made sure of it. I believe everyone agrees that a "better C" has to have manual memory management. Most even rule out Go as a systems language because of GC.

Of course, I’m pretty sure Go is much better than C at some problems. But there’s no way in hell it supersedes it.

Yeah but they were intentionally trying to build a better C++/Java, not a better C. It wasn't even aimed at things that C is good at. It was mostly aimed at writing high performance servers that have to scale really big not only in terms of performance but software complexity, size and contributions. So Go is a better C++ or Java for writing servers according to its creators.

Go is not a better C, in the sense that you cannot write an OS with it. Runtime, GC, etc.

But Go is a better language for many programs that were often written in C: network servers, CLI utilities, TUI utilities, etc.

I disagree. Go's main plus point is concurrency, whereas the irony is it lacks thread safety—something languages such as Java have had from, let's say, day one. You can fix that issue by manually managing sync.Pool objects for performance and, on top of that, use channels, but this completely defeats the purpose of Go's simplicity. Even if you want a top-of-the-line performance with some convenience, there exists an open-source framework called Netty. It is an absolute beast for network I/O, beating out Rust in some cases and sitting just behind C. And it's all in Java.

Wikipedia says Alef lacked garbage collection, contributing to it being abandoned.

But does Limbo have any 'fatal flaws' like that? Especially compared to Go.

No doubt Rob Pike is a prolific and capable programmer. But seems like he needed quite a few attempts before arriving at Go (looking at C's flaws -> Alef -> Limbo -> Go, Wikipedia also mentions a domain-specific language called Sawzall).

ZIG is already the better C.