# Goose Programming Language & Julia comparison

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/goose-programming-language-julia-comparison/140207>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Tags:** question\
**Created:** [October 24, 2026, 7:12pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/goose-programming-language-julia-comparison/140207 "2026-10-24T19:12:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![raman\_kumar](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/raman_kumar/32/26782_2.png) [@raman\_kumar](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/raman_kumar)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2026, 7:12pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/goose-programming-language-julia-comparison/140207/1 "2026-10-24T19:12:39Z")

</div>

Hi, I just stumbled upon a news of new programming language called [Goose](https://aardappel.github.io/goose/). Please comment on it and compare with Julia.

> **[The Goose Programming Language · Goose](https://aardappel.github.io/goose/)**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ufechner7](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ufechner7/32/51363_2.png) [@ufechner7](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ufechner7)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2026, 7:46pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/goose-programming-language-julia-comparison/140207/2 "2026-10-24T19:46:33Z")

</div>

Nice language! But does it have any libraries? Julia has thousands of packages. If it compiles to C it will not have a REPL. So for the time being the number of problems you can solve with Goose is small, and probably it will be less fun than programming with Julia.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MDSW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/94ad74/32.png) [@MDSW](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/MDSW)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2026, 8:20pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/goose-programming-language-julia-comparison/140207/3 "2026-10-24T20:20:44Z")

</div>

I happened to be looking at this the other day; very interesting memory management (all on the stack), threads (separate programs), and other features. It transpiles to C, and from there you have two routes: compile through any external C compiler for maximum optimization and performance, or run through the built-in TinyCC, which compiles straight to memory (but the whole compilation unit, not incremental). So, a kind of REPL could be possible, but it would be more like old-school BASIC where you `run` the whole program, or use this in some sort of embedded environment.  
I was comparing to Rust for low-level programming, and that itself makes it very different from Julia. As a possible transpilation target from or interpreter for Julia, there are a lot of differences (GC among them), so it’s not a great match. Definitely won’t have the same variety or amount of scientific libraries, though C-interop should be very good, so most of that should be available.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Palli](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/palli/32/3380_2.png) [@Palli](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Palli)\
**Post date:** [October 25, 2026, 12:26am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/goose-programming-language-julia-comparison/140207/4 "2026-10-25T00:26:50Z")

</div>

> [@ufechner7](#):
>
> If it compiles to C it will not have a REPL.

C on its own doesn’t rule out a REPL or an interpreter. But yes in this case practically speaking no. But I suppose you could vibe code a different implementation that support a REPL…

> [@MDSW](#):
>
> built-in TinyCC, which compiles straight to memory (but the whole compilation unit, not incremental). So, a kind of REPL could be possible

I’m not sure (with current implementation), it insists on:

> **Whole-program compilation.** No separate compilation, no shared libraries of Goose code ([spec §10.1](https://aardappel.github.io/goose/docs/goose_spec.html#101-whole-program-call-graph-order))

> The bundled TinyCC backend compiles and runs a program in-process, with no build step.  
> conventional incremental REPL is going to be hard. [You can use any C compiler as backend, but TCC is fastest out there.]

However I did find a REPL for C:

> **[GitHub - Keith-S-Thompson/crepl: A REPL for C](https://github.com/Keith-S-Thompson/crepl)**
>
> A REPL for C

I was looking for a REPL for TinyCC, but found:

> **[GitHub - run4flat/tinycc: My fork of Fabrice Bellard's Tiny C Compiler](https://github.com/run4flat/tinycc)**
>
> My fork of Fabrice Bellard's Tiny C Compiler

TCC could compile the Linux kernel in 8 seconds, at one point, so maybe you could just compile most things very quickly.