[audunw]

I spend quite a bit of time in the Zig community, more as an outsider as I don’t contribute very much.

I really don’t see how you could find the community toxic unless you take everything they want to do differently from other languages (which may come along with some criticism - explicit or implicit) as some kind of toxic negativity?

“I'm tired to see zig head people trying to diss Rust whenever they can.”

I feel like in every Zig post you’ve got Walter Bright saying D did this 10 years ago and a bunch of other people saying Zig isn’t a robust language because it can’t do memory safety like Rust. I find it annoying, but it’s just how it is. We like to compare things we like and there will unavoidably be some negativity in there. We should try to steelman these comments. And the steelman case for Andrew’s mention of Rust here is that this is just a different approach to memory safety, and that’s it’s just more complete in the specific way he and Fil-C is referencing

I’ve seen many Zig enthusiasts who is positive to Rusts approach to memory safety (it’s definitely nice to catch things at compile time), but just don’t consider it the ultimate approach that is best for all kinds of software

[kennykartman]

> I really don’t see how you could find the community toxic unless you take everything they want to do differently from other languages (which may come along with some criticism - explicit or implicit) as some kind of toxic negativity?

You are right: I generalized way too much in my comment. I do not mean that all Zig communities are toxic, but at least the ones I read/participate into.

[jamincan]

I'm pretty sure he posts about D on every language-related post; it's not just zig.