> Zig is arguably in a different category and appears targeted to a more limited or lower space, in terms of general programming, which brings it more in the or

> Zig is arguably in a different category and appears targeted to a more limited or lower space, in terms of general programming, which brings it more in the orbit of Rust. It's made clear that Zig's features and size will be purposely kept to the minimum, though its syntax is significantly complex. Which may hamper it, as it appears such complexity does to Rust, in terms of being picked up for general usage. I don't understand the basis on which you're saying this. From where I'm standing only odin looks simpler, the other two just make different tradeoffs -- namely trading reduced metaprogramming facilities (and the danger of complexity that entails on user code) for more language features. > It's hard to say how attempting to be a "better Rust" or attempts at taking on C, will work out. But, it does seem clear it's not going for more general and wide usage that languages such as Object Pascal, D, or Go cover. D and Go are closer to rust than zig is, and object pascal is also just another OO language. Of those, only Go is even attempting to be a better C, but requiring a runtime prevents it from being a true competitor.