For any design decision, there is always a cost/benefit tradeoff.

In this case, I think the design team might be underestimating the cost of those idiosyncrasies, simply because they've been working with them for so long.

It is hard to keep a fresh eye on a product of any kind when you've spent years looking at it, designer blindness is not something that should be ignored.

From my interactions with the Zig dev team, I don't think that's an accurate assessment. They spend a long time thinking and talking about the tradeoffs of doing things the way they are doing them vs more traditional routes and, in my opinion, they usually make a solid well reasoned decision based on Zig core principles.

I agree, they explain almost every big design decision and the process seems to be mostly rational and thorough.

But still, it does not really account for their own blindness.

In practice we can rationalize almost everything.

I read feedback, but I can't do anything with a general phrase like "syntax idiosyncrasies". I need concrete examples to understand the problem.

First of all thanks for Zig. I like your work. As I said, I don't know Zig. I read the OP's article and saw these: std.debug.print("{s}\n", .{arg}); vs std.debug.print("{s}\n", arg); // This is intuitive coming from other langs. and std.debug.print("I just want some output\n", .{}); // Not at all expected .{}

There might be good reasons why they are designed like that, but we outsiders find that syntax idiosyncratic.