You're using the master branch of a pre-1.0 tool, and you expect it to be stable without regressions? I feel like your expectations are too high.

he just want to force zig devs to tackle his problems first.

Using phrases like "fundamental culture problem" or "at least some stability"

Frankly I don't care if the problem gets fixed or not. I've already started a rewrite in Rust, and I don't plan on revisiting the Zig version until Zig has hit 1.0.

Coming from a Clojure background I generally agree with Hoare's "One is to make the program so simple, there are obviously no errors. The other is to make it so complicated, there are no obvious errors.", and in that sense Zig should easily be more correct than Rust which is much much much more complex.

The fact that that hasn't happened, with Rust being much more production ready for most of it's life, despite some major backwards compatibility breaking changes, leaves two possible answers for me:

1. The Rust developers are magically better programmers, which I believe to be false.

2. The rust community has a general culture for correctness and QA which the Zig community lacks.

I'd be interested in some constructive feedback on your Zig experience. There's nothing I can do with the claim that Zig users have a culture problem, especially since the "the zig community" does not work on the compiler - it's just me and a handful of other people - and I'm not really able to evaluate the claim about Rust being in a more "production ready" state at a comparable point in its life. To be honest, these two points feel like nothing more than personal insults.

So, putting those aside, if you have any actionable experiences to share, such as other problems you ran into, what went well, what went poorly, what workarounds you tried, other experiences you had that could help inform the direction of the project, then these things would help make Zig shine when you revisit 1.0.

At no point did a public release of rust miscompile `if (false)`. That alone justifies and proves correct the point that rust was more production ready, not only at a comparable point in its development but at all points in its development.

But you knew this already and are once again telling lies on the internet to defraud developers of their time. It's no wonder zig bugs go years without fixes since you spend all your time patrolling the internet for negative mentions of zig.

I don't know how your HN account isn't banned yet. You keep showing up in every Zig thread, saying provably false things, and calling me names. Half your HN comments are [flagged][dead] for name calling.

Am I missing something here?

You are comparing a language which hit 1.0 and had seven years of additional refinement, to a language which is still at least 2-3 years away from 1.0 and spent most if not all its time in the past 12 months on self hosting compiler?

> Am I missing something here?

Yes. I'm comparing the stability of very early Rust e.g. 0.x, to the stability of Zig now. Not Rust 1.6 with Zig 0.x.