[pjmlp]

> You certainly don't have to agree with my assessment, but you do need to acknowledge that some people very much see it that way, and don't think it's merely a "repackaged" Pascal-family language in any way.

My opinion is that 99% of those people never knew anything beyond C and C++ for systems programming, and even believe the urban myth that before C there were no systems programming languages.

Similar to those that only discover compiled languages and type systems exist, after spending several years with Python and JavaScript, and then even Go seems out of this world.

[pron]

I don't know about the numbers. Some of Zig's famous proponents are Rust experts. I don't know the specific percentages, but you could level a similar accusation at Rust's proponents, too, i.e. that they have insufficient exposure to alternative techniques. And BTW, Zig's approach is completely different from that of C, C++, Rust, or the Pascal family languages. So if we were to go by percentages, we could dismiss all criticisms against Zig on the same basis (i.e. most people may think it's like C++, or C, or Modula, but since it isn't, then their criticisms are irrelevant). In fact, because Rust is a fairly old language and Zig isn't, it's more likely that more Zig developers are familiar with Rust than vice-versa.

But also I don't see why that even matters. If even some people with a lot of experience in other approaches to systems programming and even with experience with deeper aspects of software correctness accept this assessment, then you can't waive it away. It's okay to think we're wrong - after all no one has the sufficient empirical evidence to support their claim either way - but you cannot ignore the fact that some of those with extensive experience disagree with you, just as I'm happy to accept that some of them disagree with me.