Odin is a general-purpose systems programming language authored by Bill “gingerBill” Hall. Designed as a modern alternative to C, Odin emphasizes simplicity, performance, and readability without sacrificing control over low-level details.

The website says it’s “data-oriented”, and features such as SOA (structs-of-arrays) and implicit zero initialization tie into that. Despite this focus, the language surprisingly has dynamic maps and arrays built into the language itself. While the memory is still manually managed, it’s uncommon to see such built-ins.

This perhaps sets the tone of Odin: it tries to be ergonomic and easy to write by offering a lot out of the box. Odin also comes with “vendor”, containing bindings to a wide variety of popular libraries. This makes the language very easy to get into.

Design Philosophy

Odin focuses on practical solutions to real-world programming challenges—in other words, it favours pragmatism over idealism (I’ll return to this when I later discuss Zig). Rather than introducing complex features, Odin focuses on code that is simple and clean to read and reason about. This is the polar opposite of Zig’s embracing of metaprogramming for as much as possible.

Odin also has a fairly old-fashioned view of types. The current trend is to make programming languages increasingly more complex so that they can describe more and more types in the language itself. Odin instead harkens back to older languages where built-in types flourished. Consequently, Odin does not just offer the aforementioned hashmaps and dynamic arrays, but also numerical types such as complex numbers, vectors, matrices, and even quaternions. This makes up for its rejection of operator overloading by a wide margin. It’s not a coincidence that the flagship app to demonstrate Odin’s capabilities, EmberGen, is a math- and graphics-heavy tool.

A quick look at the syntax

Odin has a fairly straightforward syntax for a beginner. The fact that there is no excessive nagging about mutability or constness makes things just work as expected.

The declaration is otherwise very inspired by Jai and fairly minimal. Odin’s concession to modern fashion shows up in its removal of the traditional ;.

Odin produces code anyone used to C or other low level languages can read at a glance. Here is a short “move the dot around the screen” using Raylib:

package test

import rl "vendor:raylib"

main :: proc() 
{
    rl.InitWindow(1280, 720, "Testing")
    pos : rl.Vector2 = { 640, 320 }
		
    for !rl.WindowShouldClose() {
        rl.BeginDrawing()
        rl.ClearBackground(rl.BLUE)
        rl.DrawRectangleV(pos, {32, 32}, rl.GREEN)
        
        if rl.IsKeyDown(.LEFT) {
            pos.x -= 400 * rl.GetFrameTime()
        }
        if rl.IsKeyDown(.RIGHT) {
            pos.x += 400 * rl.GetFrameTime()
        }
        if rl.IsKeyDown(.UP) {
            pos.y -= 400 * rl.GetFrameTime()
        }
        if rl.IsKeyDown(.DOWN) {
            pos.y += 400 * rl.GetFrameTime()
        }
        rl.EndDrawing()
    }
    rl.CloseWindow()
}

All in all, Odin’s syntax mostly feels familiar, even with changes to things like function declaration syntax. There are no deep quirks; the changes are superficial.

This conservative streak in Odin is echoed by others. Dale Weiler, at JangaFX, was an early adopter. He wrote on his blog:

All in all, Odin’s syntax mostly feel familiar, even with changes to things like function declaration syntax. There are no deep quirks, the changes are superficial.

“Odin is a systems programming language that is more conservative in its design than other newer programming languages such as Rust, Zig, and Carbon. The design ideology around Odin is to provide some greatly needed quality of life improvements over the lingua-franca of systems languages: C, while still staying as simple as C.” link

It’s clear that Odin has pulled off the trick of feeling familiar even if the syntax is much different from C.

Error handling

Odin’s most controversial choice is probably the error handling, which uses multiple returns in the fashion of Go. And while Odin offers better ergonomics with or_else and or_return, it can feel clunky compared to other solutions.

As far as first impressions go, this choice is probably not ideal. It seems like a common thing to criticize. On the other hand, this conceptual simplicity goes hand in hand with the straightforwardness that is the trademark of Odin’s design.

The Joy of Programming

Odin shares the “joy of programming” slogan with Jai, but the appreciation seems to be real. To quote one user:

“Odin has renewed my joy of programming. Built-in bounds checking, slices, distinct typing, no undefined behavior, consistent semantics between optimization modes, minimal implicit type conversions, context system, and the standard library tracking allocator combine together to eliminate the majority of memory bugs I found use for sanitizers in C/C++.” link

Another user writes:

*“[…] moving from C to Odin was quite a pleasant and rather easy experience. The languages are rather similar but Odin takes the painful bits away, letting you to focus on the problem instead of wondering why something is going weirdly wrong again.” link

Just taking the language for a spin, it’s friendly and does what you think. It’s essentially an approachable language that just feels nice to use.

Comparisons

Jai

Odin and Jai share syntactic similarities, but their approaches differ. Where Jai emphasizes compile-time execution and metaprogramming, offering powerful abstractions, Odin instead focuses on simplicity and lots of features out of the box.

While on a syntactic level Odin clearly took inspiration from Jai, the two languages have evolved very differently. Jonathan Blow stated in a video that Jai has grown more complex than he planned.

Odin, on the other hand, is clearly a language that feels simple to learn and use.

Zig

Both Odin and Zig aim to modernize systems programming, but they clearly diverge in philosophy. Zig offers extensive compile-time metaprogramming (although not to the level of Jai), whereas Odin only retains the necessary functionality needed for conditional compilation.

Odin, like Jai, has runtime reflection. Zig’s reflection, on the other hand, is generally limited to compile time. In practice, this means Zig relies on a lot of metaprogramming to do things like serialization through type inspection, whereas in Odin it’s available at runtime, so the code is magnitudes easier to understand.

The biggest difference is its attitude toward the programmer’s experience. Odin tries to be simple and make it fun and pleasant to program in; it has a straightforward, no-fuss syntax.

Zig, on the other hand, cares little about the user experience and prefers verbose explicitness over convenient abstractions.

A developer compared the two:

“Zig is very verbose… Odin in comparison is very minimal in terms of typing while communicating basically the same info.” link

Criticisms

While Odin has been in use by projects for quite a while, the official documentation is still lacking in depth and examples. On top of this, it seems that the primary community platform is Discord, which may not be accessible to all.

There have been people criticizing the lack of more extensive metaprogramming. But with access to type information at runtime and a fairly wide array of built-ins, it is not clear whether this has any merit.

For example, both Zig and Jai offer support for struct-of-arrays through metaprogramming. In Odin, however, this feature is built into the language.

Conclusion

Odin presents a compelling option for developers seeking a modern, efficient, and readable systems programming language. That it is successful in graphics-intensive applications like EmberGen demonstrates its robustness and performance. While it has areas for growth—particularly in documentation and community accessibility—Odin’s pragmatic design and focus on developer experience make it a worthy alternative to C for contemporary systems programming needs.