Rust is what most *should* use for system-level programming and/or overall programming, if possible. Rust is safer, better overall + ergonomics, ecosystem, etc

Rust is what most *should* use for system-level programming and/or overall programming, if possible. Rust is safer, better overall + ergonomics, ecosystem, etc. However, Zig have some nice properties: - Is easier to do bit/memory wrangling in Zig than in Rust - Is FAR easier to cross-compile. To the point that for example I use Zig to compile my Rust project for musl - Is MUCH faster to compile - Is far "smaller" that is nice in constrained situation (not just "environments", for example, you can use zig for when you will use gcc/llvm to compile some small c file) Zig is a very good match if the scope of the project is relatively small. Rust shine much more when is more big or you need to work for a team of people. Also, if you plan to make a library that will be used by others, better to use a safer lang. I don't see both as competitors. They are excellent complements, and my dream is to Zig to replace C and Rust/ada/pascal to replace C/C++. P.D: A probably good match is to make some low-level thing in Zig (where before was C) and FFI it in Rust.