Why Zig when there is already C++, D, and Rust?

IMHO those "language designer trivia" are interesting to read and think about but in the end irrelevant for popularity (and I think Zig will be popular). My personal favourites so far are: - The language is really simple and "enjoyable". Writing C++ often feels like puzzle solving to me even after 25 years. From the little Rust I've written so far, I got the same impression. Writing Zig is like writing C or Go but even more straight-forward. The language…

I don't know why this article keeps showing up on HN every other year but since it's up, I took the time to read it and fix all the outdated facts. Notably, when it was written before there was not a package manager available. Now there is, so I rewrote that section. It should finish deploying in a couple minutes.

Or nim? I like nim's syntax the most of the four, funnily enough.

As I learn Zig I am realizing that what Zig is is what C++ should/could have been had C++ not anchored itself to C; that tiny change from "all valid C is valid C++" to "you can use C, we will just convert it to Zig for you," that change in methodology freed Zig to actually improve on what C is instead of just extend and build on C. Hindsight. But I am just getting into my second week with…