[epolanski]

My issue with Zig is that Andrew Kelly keeps rewriting and rewriting and changing the design non stop.

At this point the project is a decade old, with no signs of ever getting more stable in the next one.

I am not saying this is bad for the language itself, I can understand the goal of getting it "right".

But for a language aiming to be a C replacement/alternative it seems to fail to understand that C being a language that barely changed over our lives is one of the core reasons for its success.

That stability makes accepting its compromises and design shortfalls easier.

[ForHackernews]

If you are prepared to accept a lot of compromises in the name of stability then, as you say, C is right there! You have no reason to adopt Zig or anything else, C will outlive us all.

If you're trying to offer something different than C, for people who aren't willing to accept those tradeoffs, then you have to do something different.

[hiccuphippo]

They need to take their time and break things now in order to become a language that barely changes later.

[_bohm]

Curious what design changes you're referring to specifically. I've been using the language for a couple years now and the language itself has undergone pretty minor changes, perhaps the biggest one being the removal of `usingnamespace`, which I don't think was that big a deal. Or are you referring to changes in the stdlib?

[ttoinou]

What if you could rewrite your zig code with AI ?