I have no dog in this race as I don't use Zig at the moment, but I'm not sure speculative is that unfair. Zig can literally be a drop-in replacement for GCC/cla

I have no dog in this race as I don't use Zig at the moment, but I'm not sure speculative is that unfair. Zig can literally be a drop-in replacement for GCC/clang [1], meaning you don't even have to fully adopt Zig as the build tool, so your initial comment about a lack of separation of concerns doesn't seem correct: just use "zig cc" for the C/C++ source if that's all you want. That said, using Zig as the build tool seems to bring trivial cross-compilation support and portability, without having to deal with linkers [2]. Cross-compilation has always been and remains a PITA, so that's pretty compelling. [1] https://andrewkelley.me/post/zig-cc-powerful-drop-in-replacement-gcc-clang.html https://andrewkelley.me/post/zig-cc-powerful-drop-in-replace... [2] https://zig.news/kristoff/compile-a-c-c-project-with-zig-368j https://zig.news/kristoff/compile-a-c-c-project-with-zig-368...