Because it hasn't been released, and it likely never will be. It's impossible to criticize a programming language without actually using it, so any discussion of its merits is moot without an actual release.
C was largely "finished" when it came out–future additions have not added much. And by "finished" I don't mean "never changes", I mean "finished enough for a 1.0".
Aside from some syntax around function prototypes, it's really not, unless you are counting "people tend to use certain things less often" as how you're counting that difference.
If you're counting the language by "how many pages of specification" it takes up, perhaps. To me is the language is really like the many features it had when it came out, and then the standard library improvements since then have been "string routines" and then "more string routines" and then "atomics, and also some string routines". Now C++, that's a language that has changed a huge deal–your C++03 code is obviously out-of-place in a C++11 codebase, but nobody will bat an eye if you drop some C89 code in a C11 project.
I've used C for long enough to meaningfully contribute to this conversation. And yes, by my definition C takes much of its inspiration from B, although there are enough differences that I would not claim that B is some sort of release of C.
Maybe he has different standards than you? I assume Jai will be similar to his games as far as attention to details goes. I would describe his games as having a maniacal attention to detail.
...Except that he did talk about all of his games almost from the get go? He showed earliest prototypes of Braid and Witness publicaly when the games were just blocky protypes, in the latter case good 7 years before the game came out. I don't know where you got this idea from, the way he is handling the development of the language seems to be pretty much an extension of how he develops his games.
It's his hobby/passion project, I really don't understand your objection.
You seem to have a problem with the fact he criticises other languages. Would you also treat someone who isn't currently designing a language with the same harshness if they also criticised a language the way Jonathan Blow does?
But he is designing a programming language. Even if it's all a fantasy or a Python script, like you claim, there's still a design.
His opinions and views on PL design are still up to scrutiny, so it's not a glass house like you claim. PL design is not compiler writing. You're free to implement all his ideas and write a Jai compiler yourself if you need a proper compiler in your hands to properly criticise the language.
And frankly, the only thing mentioned on this thread about "80% features" is not as controversial as you're making it. Nobody here is claiming it as revolutionary or game-changing, so even if you're right, your posts are a bit uncalled for.
