I don't quite get why this is flagged, hence I vouched for it. Calling someone a "full time safety coomer" seems innapropriate for someone holding the title of "vp of community" in the Zig foundation. It certainly makes me reevaluate the zig community, which thus far was at times a bit childish, but always friendly. While I see this might violate "Eschew flamebait.", a constructive reflection of the interactions between the rust and zig community still feels like a worthwhile endeavour. Edit: After some research it seems that the author has since apologised twitter.com/croloris/status/15687041258…

Relevant tweet from Andrew Kelley, founder of Zig, several hours after this was posted: >I see a lot of toxic Rust vs Zig discourse on Twitter right now. I want to clarify my stance: >I'm happy Rust exists and I think it offers a compelling set of tradeoffs. >If Rust people can afford Zig the same courtesy, then I see our relationship as collaborative. >Let us exist. twitter.com/andy_kelley/status/15686793…

The original tweet seems to have been deleted: mobile.twitter.com/croloris/status/1568…... Does anyone have a copy?

Relevant tweet: >A massive step backwards for the industry. :( twitter.com/pcwalton/status/15683065987…... :(

pcwalton said on 9/9/2022 that Zig was "a massive step backwards for the industry". He believes that all new languages should be "memory safe"; anything that doesn't meet his definition of memory safe is against "consensus". twitter.com/pcwalton/status/15683020658… Patrik's comment came before croloris's flame, and around the same time Zig was praised in the recent GameJam thread. The trade-off between memory safety and performance triggered a minor flamewar which Patrick heated by asserting that Zig wasn't memory safe and it violated "consensus". news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32783244