Syntax has a heavy influence on function, so if all languages had very similar syntax, they couldn't be ideologically diverse without jumping through ridiculous hoops.
> couldn't be ideologically diverse without jumping through ridiculous hoops.
Jumping thru hoops is what Zig seems to choose with its unorthodox, different-just-to-be-different syntax. I wonder, how many will want to jump with it?
> Jumping thru hoops is what Zig seems to choose with its unorthodox, different-just-to-be-different syntax.
Did zig run over your dog or something? You seem to be particularly hostile in your comments about it. As someone who has participated in discussions about zig syntax for years, I can assure you that a significant amount of thought and consideration goes into these choices. It is not "different-just-to-be-different". In fact, the very syntax being complained about is derived from other languages!
No, I'm adept of (anti)survivorship bias. In other words, I like to study mistakes. And Zig offers a great field of study in that regard, as many issues are seen with a naked eye (i.e. even to casual passers-by).
