[cbmuser]

> As always with Zig posts, here come the haters. I really wonder why you even care about it.

It's another language stack that would need to be maintained within Linux distributions for years to come (security support, architecture support etc).

Upstream developers always seem to assume that there is no cost associated to introducing new software stacks. But in the end, someone has to maintain it. And they keep forgetting the purpose of software is to serve users, not developers.

And I'm not sure what's so revolutionary about Zig that couldn't have been solved by improving other languages.

For Zig in particular, the language isn't even stable enough that you can compile packages like Ghostty with any recent version of the Zig compiler. It has to be a very specific version of the compiler.

[yxhuvud]

No. If you don't want to maintain it, don't package it, or for that matter programs written in it. Yes, there are valid reasons not to use zig from a stability perspective, but just ignore it if it isn't good enough for your standards.

Personally I'm glad that there are more people trying to break out of the C tar pit. Even if I'd never chose to use the language.

[reppap]

> And they keep forgetting the purpose of software is to serve users, not developers.

Developers are the users of these software stacks though? I don't really understand your point.

[ekipan]

> And they keep forgetting the purpose of software is to serve users, not developers.

I don't have any horse in the game, but I do think Zig is interesting. This remark is funny to me because it's literally one of the tenets the Zig devs make decisions by!

https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Zen

> * Together we serve the users.