> I think Zig is mostly community-driven and seems to have some traction. Not Rust levels of traction but definitely relevance.
Zig already appears to have lapped Rust in areas like game development, GUIs, compilation speeds, C FFI, etc. and all that despite Zig not yet being 1.0. That means backwards compatibility is not guaranteed until then nor is the full feature set fully defined. Notwithstanding that 1.0 release, traction and relevance only seem to be a matter of time.
I think "nearly the whole ecosystem is primarily driven by consultants for consultants" is a flimsy house of cards, rather than a virtue like the author of the article.
Maybe Haxe is an example of another language like this. I wonder if it applies though to languages that are hosted i.e. Elixir is constrained somewhat by what Ericsson decides to do w/ Erlang
> I think Zig is mostly community-driven and seems to have some traction. Not Rust levels of traction but definitely relevance.
Zig already appears to have lapped Rust in areas like game development, GUIs, compilation speeds, C FFI, etc. and all that despite Zig not yet being 1.0. That means backwards compatibility is not guaranteed until then nor is the full feature set fully defined. Notwithstanding that 1.0 release, traction and relevance only seem to be a matter of time.
On the one hand, all the major languages enjoy the backing of corporate behemoths to some degree or another.
On the other hand, I don't have to worry that Google is just going to fire José and mothball Elixir on some random day.
I think "nearly the whole ecosystem is primarily driven by consultants for consultants" is a flimsy house of cards, rather than a virtue like the author of the article.
Maybe Haxe is an example of another language like this. I wonder if it applies though to languages that are hosted i.e. Elixir is constrained somewhat by what Ericsson decides to do w/ Erlang