The fact that WASM requires a JS is a marketing fail and misses what could have been a marketing opportunity to make the claim, "finally an alternative to JavaS

The fact that WASM requires a JS is a marketing fail and misses what could have been a marketing opportunity to make the claim, "finally an alternative to JavaScript". In this case, this is not a non-issue. If you look at the original github issue, it does a lot of damage, followed by a lot of confusion, followed by a damage-control post that shouldn't have been required if it the original issue was written with more care. It wasn't, because the marketing aspect of Zig was not the focus -- the technical issue was. So it blew up. Hopefully it'll be a lesson learned, but I suspect it isn't. It will take 20 more of such incidents before it sinks in. As far as it was "announced years ago", I don't see how that matters. The people who are seeing the issue now, and this discussion weren't there to see the announcement years ago. But I do understand what you're saying. You're point is that the onus is on the the reader to the do their research before overreacting. That's a perfectly fine position. I have a counter opinion which is that the person making the statement / claim / annoucement, simply be understanding of the implication of their statements. This thing blowing up should not have been a surprise to anyone. Sounds like it would have been to you, so the fact that it blew up is evidence that you would have misjudged. Unless you also agree that the initial message should could have been better worded, in which case, what exactly are you disagreeing with?