That's funny, I read this affirmation (and variants thereof) rather often, but I've been using Rust on and off since 0.4 and I've always been discussing with developers who have balanced and careful opinions of Rust, starting with the Rust language and compiler teams.

Rust has never been publicized as a solution to all problems. It happens to be my current favorite language for many tasks, but I don't think any serious Rust developer harbors the impression that Rust is designed to implement everything.

That being said, the community is much larger these days, so I assume that there are users who do not have a sufficient PL background to understand the tradeoffs made in the design of Rust.

> Rust has never been publicized as a solution to all problems.

As a Zig fan, I thought GP's link was pretty favorable to Zig and pretty likely to be informative to users of other languages.

There is not many languages that would fair worse next to C. For starters, not being able to create any form of even minimal, zero-cost abstractions like a vector is criminal.

I think it's an apt comparison, Zig vs. C, given that Zig intends to replace C.

Go was aiming to be a replacement for C as well, but they didn't even try to reach that goal because Go programs require an OS to run on; something must host the runtime, even though it's included in the binary. I love Go and I dislike C quite a bit.

Zig vs. C seems fair to me, because there are no Zig zealots (or very few, at least not yet) and there are no C zealots who have lots of experience with C.