[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.