Excuse the superficial review, but it looks like JSON, not C. Why the name association with C, apart from the fact that you can include C libs? Vala or D look much closer to C.
That you compile (not translate) down to C is an implementation detail. I think you've deviated enough from C that a name change might help people's first impression - I had very different expectations because of the name.
Backwards compatible with C with object-orientation. When you include the name of another language in your own name, I assume you're either a subset or a superset of that language.
I have no real suggestions, but it's worth noting that some popular languages have names with no relationship to the language (Java, Python, Ruby). I think perhaps the most important criteria are that it's a single syllable, easy to say, easy to type and doesn't have unfortunate associations.
Please don't confuse this with an issue of what I want. It's just what I think the name implies.
"Backwards compatible" implies, to me, that if I take out the new features from the language, I'm left with legal code in the original language. This is markedly different than being able to call one language from another. I can call Fortran code from C, and I would never characterize Fortran and C as "backwards compatible."
One is about source code compatibility. The other is about object code compatibility.
