I think there are several things going on here: - You're used to the way it works now, and don't like that it's changing - The build system is woefully underd

I think there are several things going on here: - You're used to the way it works now, and don't like that it's changing - The build system is woefully underdocumented (understandable, since it's new and hasn't stabilized, but it's not a good thing), and you're conflating that with the system being hard to understand, which it isn't. - You're combining these things, and your inflated sense of how well you know every C programmer in existence, into a claim which, again, I consider risible. Because you're saying things like this: > There’s a reason why Zig has been marketed as a compiler that can also serve as a drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang. What you’re effectively saying is that this main selling point doesn’t matter even though that’s been one of the main things that makes Zig attractive to C programmers. Incredible. Which is a bizarre thing to derive from what I said, and is also absurd. Andrew wants Zig to be the best way to build C, always has, and he's the one responsible for making it as good as it is. His goals there haven't changed, what's changed is how he intends to provide that. Now, you can claim, and you have, that he's going to make it much worse in the process. But your reasoning for saying this is thin and I disagree with that premise completely.