Zig: A new direction for low-level programming?

You can also create a function capable of doing that for any object, or one which curries the type parameter, if you'd like to reduce the boilerplate if you have many types of objects you'd like to instantiate positionally.

I am not entirely sure what the Author is criticizing? It looks like a comparison to Odin rather than any critic.

And also: I don't quite understand most of the Arguments. UB is often a way to ensure that certain optimizations can be made (if i remember correctly.) Also there just are certain facts that when you have full control over memory, some things can just not be predictable. (Accessing invalid pointers as an example)

Verbosity is mostly subjective. Most of Author's concerns were path lengths, which can easily be "fixed" by redefining the path into a constant. `const debug = std.debug;` I also think the Argument towards "it looks like java's println" full on is a bad argument. Especially because `std.debug.print` does something completely different.

The whole "critic" towards `build.zig` also seems like it's done with without good faith. Yes it's daunting at first. Yes it requires to learn about the build system in the beginning. Sure those are all very real Arguments, author just doesn't want to mention the benefits of it.

Then half of the arguments about comptime i also don't quite understand. It seems like it is building up the main point of the argument, but then you just get hit by a statement. So no explanation no nothing. Talking about lazy evaluation and a little bit of how SoA makes things worse (which i have no clue how that matters in this context) and then saying it's violation "no hidden control flow" is not really getting the point i feel like.

I've been closely following and evaluating the train of C replacement languages that was (I believe) started by Jonathan Blow and Jai.

Zig is one of the strong contenders, but Odin is IMO following a saner path, Carbon and D should be mentioned and I think there are a few others.

My initial reaction to new programming languages is naturally skeptical, but I really liked the way the designers behind those efforts approached it, trying to solve frequent C/C++ pain points and adding a few fresh ideas.

But overall, after a few years, I am sticking with C and orthodox C++, the cost/benefit ratio is simply not worth the effort, none of them are really mature and the problems they try to solve are not painful enough.

My current take on this is to view Jai/Zig/Odin/etc. as attempted C forks, quite often motivated by hubris and coming with the usual inconvenience of forks, a lot of wasteful/redundant efforts put into small islands, each ruled by their own "benevolent" kings.

An other analogy that can be made is the many attempts at replacing keyboards layouts. Dvorak etc. They probably have their merits, but the adoption was limited to a few enthusiasts for the same reasons that C is unlikely to get replaced by any of those forks.

Not using a variable is the same as flying out your car window?

It's more like the cashier smacks a peanut out of your hand saying you'll get fat.