Re:The Zig project is going nowhere
by xydone on Wednesday November 11, 2026 @07:15AM
(#50452535)
I don't like to use big, sharp and divisive words but for lack of better ways to express what I think, I'm gonna say it straight up - it is extremely stupid.
So the complaints are:
1) that a 0.x versioned language which itself says is unstable and will break things for the sake of future quality, is breaking stuff? Shocking. Unbelievable.
2) they moved to codeberg. I think it absolutely is fair to say a project is going nowhere because they went from one git forge to another. It's a big migration for end users after all, you have to set a new remote for your origin
3) they do not use github sponsor anymore. Wonder if this is because they moved to codeberg. Unsure.
4) they wish for contributors to be engaged with the project and to stick long term.
5) they make "sweeping statements" on the quality of AI. Nothing I say here will convince you of anything unless you already agree with me, so I will spare my time and just say that given the point of view here is that AI is actually better than what Zig contributors think it is, and Zig contributors target version bump documentation breaking changes for humans, wouldn't this also directly clash with your idea that breaking changes take up a substantial amount of work for users of Zig? It's one or the other
This goes alongside "the language doesn't own its users" - a claim so ridiculous, the authors themselves have said plenty of times that, for example, if you wish to use AI to develop zig, you can, just not in the compiler project. What have they done which would make you think anyone at ZSF wants control over what you do and how you do it?
Overall I feel like this is complaining for the sake of complaining. I am also willingly going to ignore the blatant AI writing style (I'm sure that's just the way OP writes though) and the site which I feel like I can confidently say with which model and what effort level it was generated.
So the complaints are: 1) that a 0.x versioned language which itself says is unstable and will break things for the sake of future quality, is breaking stuff? Shocking. Unbelievable.
2) they moved to codeberg. I think it absolutely is fair to say a project is going nowhere because they went from one git forge to another. It's a big migration for end users after all, you have to set a new remote for your origin
3) they do not use github sponsor anymore. Wonder if this is because they moved to codeberg. Unsure.
4) they wish for contributors to be engaged with the project and to stick long term.
5) they make "sweeping statements" on the quality of AI. Nothing I say here will convince you of anything unless you already agree with me, so I will spare my time and just say that given the point of view here is that AI is actually better than what Zig contributors think it is, and Zig contributors target version bump documentation breaking changes for humans, wouldn't this also directly clash with your idea that breaking changes take up a substantial amount of work for users of Zig? It's one or the other
This goes alongside "the language doesn't own its users" - a claim so ridiculous, the authors themselves have said plenty of times that, for example, if you wish to use AI to develop zig, you can, just not in the compiler project. What have they done which would make you think anyone at ZSF wants control over what you do and how you do it?
Overall I feel like this is complaining for the sake of complaining. I am also willingly going to ignore the blatant AI writing style (I'm sure that's just the way OP writes though) and the site which I feel like I can confidently say with which model and what effort level it was generated.
Do better