> also inspires a new approach to partial evaluation, replacing generics and value templates, concepts/traits/typeclasses, constexprs/procedural macros, macros (or, at least, the "good parts" of macros) and conditional compilation with a single, simple feature.

So, zig is new to me but looking at an overview of the feature in question here this feels pretty hyperbolic? I certainly agree that the approach it takes is syntactically less noisy than angle-bracket generics/templates (which I dislike quite a lot) but it doesn't seem particularly revolutionary vs. the way evaluation of types in haskell works, for eg. A function that produces a type based on type arguments is roughly a typeclass.

And the intermediate products of a function with comptime arguments are still pretty much semantically equivalent to a C++ template anyways, just with the arguments in a different place.

It is cool, and I like the angle it takes, but it seems more synthesis than revolution to me. Am I missing something?