[User23]

There are so many languages available today that I'm sure there are plenty he would have approved of. For example, I think he might have appreciated Zig. If you read his work it's pretty easy to see his top priority is managing complexity and limiting surprise.

[_u9xp]

> his top priority is managing complexity and limiting surprise

Zig doesn't do either of those things. There are a fair amount of criticisms of the mental model of the author that I've seen voiced - some including security.

What's worse, the community surrounding Zig (in particular, the Discord community) operates more like a cult - any negative questioning gets you shunned.

I was personally a huge fan of Zig until a number of questionable design decisions and dismissed bug reports lead me to believe it will forever remain a toy language. I can't imagine Dijkstra approving.

[User23]

That’s too bad. I was judging based on the overview of Zig that was recently posted here. I gladly defer to your more informed opinion on the subject, but I’ll maintain Dijkstra would have liked the design goal of executing the procedure as written absent fancy obfuscated control structures.

The cult-like attitude that many programmers have about languages certainly supports Dijkstra’s claims about the immaturity of the field.