> main developer(s) are using crowd funding and nothing has really been "wow" It's funny: I think these are both positive signs. The weight of history tells u

> main developer(s) are using crowd funding and nothing has really been "wow" It's funny: I think these are both positive signs. The weight of history tells us that the overwhelming majority of new languages will die. So, in that sense, I agree zig probably will too. However, I think it's worth separating languages into ones that have essentially zero chance to survive long-term, and those that have a reasonable non-zero chance to succeed (and those in the middle). To me, zig is the most promising "better C" (which is why I'm one of those people crowd-funding zig). Since I think we really need a better C, I think zig is on the side of those with a reasonable non-zero chance to succeed. Some things that might get it over the hump: Zig aspires not just to be a better C, but a better C compiler. It includes a first-class C compiler (Clang/LLVM), and adds first class cross-compiling support. Along with native C integration and a language designed to appeal to C programmers, it's potentially low-friction to adopt in places where one would go to C now. That is, it seems to me there is a viable, incremental path from C to Zig. (Incremental is important. E.g., even if zig succeeds, there won't be a RIIZ movement because there's no need. People will write or rewrite as it makes sense for their project, not their programming language.) I get that zig is a work-in-progress, and that it may well not succeed. Just that it looks like it has the best chance to me (or maybe it's just that I like the approach it is taking).