Zig and the design choices within

Zig and the design choices within
blueberrywren.dev

otherwise, not sure who the audience of this piece is supposed to be, but it's written in a pretty combative tone, which will not be persuasive to anyone who isn't already persuaded, so i guess more of a rant than anything worth sharing here

My impression is that this is the main thing for Zig too. The intersection of the set of languages that let you write very low-level code where you have full control over memory and allocation and the set of languages that are enjoyable to program in is pretty small.

C is in there if you've internalized many of its warts are fine with all of the many many footguns it has. C++ is in there if you much of your enjoyment comes from the machismo of feeling like you have conquered C++'s beastly language complexity. Rust is in there if proving to the compiler that you know what you're doing is satisfying to you.

Zig sort of gets out of your way like C does, even when what you're trying to do is potentially harmful. But it's more modern and expressive and doesn't have all of C's historical baggage.

I find Zig to be a pleasant option for code that requires high performance. I find it strictly dominates C as an option, as Zig outperforms C on every criteria I care about in a language's developer experience.

I often see people compare Zig to Rust and complain that Zig doesn't have Rust's safety guarantees. I don't know Rust, but looking at it casually, the language itself seems to have a lot of complexity that doesn't appeal to me, and I'd still prefer Zig to Rust. If I need memory safety, I'd rather write in Go or Python.

When I read articles like these, the gotchas they find don't seem that compelling to me. It's always like if you write your code in a deliberately confusing way to confuse the compiler, you can get incorrect results, but I don't care because I would never write code like that.