Drew did take an interest in zig for a while. It does look awfully like zig. I think I see two major differences: First: > we want the first release to be a

Drew did take an interest in zig for a while. It does look awfully like zig. I think I see two major differences: First: > we want the first release to be a complete, stable, production-ready programming language with all of the trimmings so arguably drew is ahead of zig. My understanding is that Zig is being open now (there's a major breaking syntax change in the pipeline), but will be very conservative about what goes into 1.0, so there is a lot of tying off loose proposals and finishing out the language, and documenting everything ahead of getting to 1.0. That's going to a while with such a large community as zig's. Second: I'm guessing this new language will have less complexity in the "comptime" space. The syntax is really close. If I had drew's ear, I would almost have him write the spec to match Zig and market it as Zig--. Coda I'm a huge zig fanboy, and if it is up to being a "competition" I would guess that zig will do better. 1) Andrew is extremely skilled at figuring out? (marshalling?/delegating?/not overdoing?) the social/branding/growth of the language. 2) having had a more open initial design, Zig will cover far more interesting ground than drew's language. 3) I don't know if this is deliberate or accidental, but it seems to me Zig is following microsoft's "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" philosophy quite well, with a holistic view of not just building a better language, but also replacing C toolchain components: killing make/automake/cmake, replacing cc, and now replacing ld, these are huge painpoints in the C ecosystem... On the other hand maybe it's not best to think too hard of programming languages as 'competing entities'.