[pjmlp]

Looks like it, while at the same time still lacks any killer application that would make learning Zig a requirement, regardless of one's opinion on the language, like it already happened with many others now in mainstream.

So where is Zig's OS, browser, docker, engine, security, whatever XYZ, that would make having Zig on the toolbox a requirement?

I don't see Bun nor Tiger Beetle being that app.

[dgb23]

Not a killer app, but I think one thing you might consider is zig build.

[pjmlp]

Not a seller to me.

[lionkor]

The killer application case is slow adoption inside ancient C and C++ codebases. That's the angle.

[pjmlp]

It hardly brings anything new to the table in such cases, given its approach to safety.

Most of it you can already get in C and C++, by using the tools that have in the market for the last 30 years.

[lionkor]

It brings a lot of nice features, the potential for a healthier ecosystem, a unified build system, explicit allocators, explicit casts, and so on.

[pjmlp]

Ecosystems sell languages, not the other way around.

[lionkor]

Yes, and you can use Zig in the C and C++ ecosystems, that's my point

[pjmlp]

For what though, what is the selling point to have IT accept it on the allowed toolchains.

[lewdwig]

And yet C/C++ developers have mostly spent the last 30 years not using those tools which is why safer successors to C and C++ appeared.

[pjmlp]

Zig is as safe as Modula-2 or Object Pascal, not the turning point of something like Swift or Rust.

[detaro]

I think pjmlps point is that Zig is not adding enough to be one of those safer successors.