Let's put it this way: WHEN (and IF) Zeta works, people can discuss its suitability for audio work, and how it would cater to the VST crowds. Until then, this is beyond premature discussion...

I think people fail to understand, too, that I'm OK with having modest goals for Zeta. This system is going to be an experiment. If it doesn't become hugely popular, it's not the end of the world. If some things don't work out, we can try something different. At the end of the day, I think some things really have to be tried out before we can decide if they're viable/useful or not.

I suspect that some of that confusion comes from the fact that you directly compare yourself to LLVM, and that you haven't mentioned much about ParrotVM or NekoVM, which are both efforts in this space. It's also worth saying that the CLR and DLR are both efforts here as well.

When you compare yourself to LLVM, you phrase the comparison as only an advantage (Zeta will be easier to use than LLVM), rather than a tradeoff (Zeta will aim for ease of use before performance, as opposed to LLVM).

I don't suggest that you start hedging your writing, but am just pointing out that if you make big comparisons, people will assume great ambition on your part.

In the large, sure. But "if you're going to say you can do X, you should have a good idea of what X is" is pretty baseline, I think.