[ralphb]

In general I would agree, but (as multiple people pointed out) the zig standard library source code is very accessible.

[adito]

I beg to disagree with you. I'm newbie and I still found that zig standard library still daunting to read. When people said it's very accessible, I'm curious what people mean by that? What makes it very accessible?

[ralphb]

I am also a zig newbie. Since zig is a relatively simple language, I've found it easy enough to read and understand what is going on in the zig standard library, even if I don't understand the particular details of some language syntax. Of course experience and background is going to play in here.

The zig standard library does the following to help me:

- Logical, straightforward code, no magic incantations

- Well named variables and functions

- Comments

- Folder structure is easy to navigate

- Easy to find on github - not hidden away

Obviously your mileage may vary.

[dnautics]

I can't put my finger on it. I love ruby, but often times digging deeper into Ruby source code, I would hit a point where I would think, "oh God, I give up, this is magic". Comparing it to elixir, my daily driver, is like night and day. Usually I can figure out what is happening (there are a few places, like Phoenix Routes and Ecto Query Builders where I have gotten stimied). Zig is even better - especially at the stdlib level

[heavenlyblue]

> I'm newbie and I still found that zig standard library still daunting to read

If you're a newbie, why are you learning an experimental language?