[kristoff_it]

> before claiming that a few syntax tricks is all it takes to outsmart people who spent their entire university careers thinking about these problems

I don't think I have written anything of that sort. Thinking in OOP terms in, say, Java is great. Zig is not an OOP language though, and it cares about mapping nicely to CPU instructions more than it cares about mapping nicely to UML diagrams, so thinking in OOP terms in Zig is not that great, more often than not.

I've seen plenty of people coming into Zig expecting it to conform to their expectations towards object orientation or functional purity. Neither will be able to have a good time if they can't let go of their preconceptions.

[vegai_]

Sorry for misunderstanding the mood and context. In context of Zig, this makes a lot of sense, making my calls for humility premature and tad ironic.