> I hope you scored all the brownie points with Araq My respect for Araq is well earned and deserved. Thinking that it's about brownie points tells more about you than about me.
As for the matter: You were (and are) free to clearly show how Zig's importing C stuff is not insignificantly better than Nim's -and- how Zig is otherwise equal to Nim in all other regards -and- how a possibly slightly easier or slightly more efficient C FFI is a _significant_ factor. As for the not caring it seems to me that we both do not care a lot about each others points. I, however, have well accepted studies on my side that clearly demonstrate the importance of readability (where Zig looks poor next to Nim), and also the obvious fact that software quality is the single most important factor for many _major_ problems (like safety and security nightmares). To name just one example: I recently ported a CAESAR (crypto competition, AEAD sym. crypto) finalist reference code (written in C) to Nim and discovered a (typical C/C++) off by one buffer overflow error that does allow to crash any server using it. That's _important_ and it shows that after decades of experience we _still_ produce bad code even in core software (those finalists have the potential to soon run on more than a billion systems and in very sensitive areas). Well noted, that code wasn't simply bad; it was carefully and generally well designed and well implemented ... but it's just too easy in languages with bad readability to miss a detail and/or make a small but in that case tragically dangerous error. But you praise C++. So it's not ill will from my side but it just seems that we really live in different worlds. I care about systems having at least a reasonable level of reliability while you seem to care about minute insignificant (from my point of views) advantages of a language over Nim.
