I think they solve some similar and some different problems, with some similarities and differences! The biggest difference in the problems they solve, in my v

I think they solve some similar and some different problems, with some similarities and differences! The biggest difference in the problems they solve, in my view, is that Zig does not aim for safety. It'll be easier to write safe programs yourself with Zig than it might be with C, but it doesn't give you any guarantees. Zig also seems like it may be a better fit for embedded programming; there's a big community around embedded Rust, and it sounds like there's a lot of progress, but still an uphill battle. But yes, Zig:Rust :: C:C++ has merit in that Zig is a much smaller, less feature-rich language.