Why? This doesn't make sense to me, for a few reasons reasons:
1) I'm looking for the best, not the best by programmer hours or growth. Zig has accomplished a lot and I'm impressed by the work of people on it. But it's still a strictly worse option than many others. I think it's poised to be great in the future, but right now it's not good enough.
2) Organizations always become less effective as they grow, Zig being small would have an "unfair" advantage since they're still small.
3) Normalizing by programmer hours would lead you to a language that took a few hours to be developped, but is not good at all. This doesn't make sense.
I feel like you're evaluating Zig as if it was a company on which to invest. In that case, Zig is a good pick. It's small but already at a good point, and probably will have a good growth. But if you're looking for a supplier right now, I wouldn't bet on them. It's still small, young, and depend on a few people.
What are you talking about? We're talking about the current state of Zig. From this thread of comments, on your messages:
> It's important to consider that for zig at this stage, "not having valid documentation" is expected. At some point not having valid docs will become considered to be unacceptable.
> Seriously, comparing by timeline like that is an unfair comparison.
The article is about failing to learn right now. The first comment was about the absence of documentation right now. You're defending Zig being worse than other languages by saying that Zig is younger, which is a fair point. But you also said that comparing by timelines is unfair, which I think is wrong, which is why we're having this conversation. My point is that comparing by timeline is totally fair, because people are evaluating a language on what it is, and not what it can be.
To speak in more precise terms: the current position of Zig is worse than other languages, especially in terms of documentation. The position adjusted for the timeline of Zig is also worse than many other languages at that point. You're asking us to not compare by position or position adjusted for the timeline, but by position relative to the ressources invested, and/or position adjusted for the timeline relative to the ressources invested. I'm saying that this comparaison is useless, because 1) those relation doesn't scale linearly, and 2) because people are interested in the actual position and position adjusted for the timeline, not the efficiency.
Since you reject comparing the evolution of the documentation of Zig through time ("Seriously, comparing by timeline like that is an unfair comparison.") and right now ("It's important to consider that for zig at this stage, "not having valid documentation" is expected."), your only argument seems to be about the future: "At some point not having valid docs will become considered to be unacceptable.". The vast majority of people, when faced with a language that looks not great at the moment but could have a bright future, will react with "I'll take a look again in a year or two". You argue for the opposite, that people should contribute to Zig instead: "You should probably kick a few dollars into the zig foundation as penance for having made it publically. ;)". That is a weak point, and won't convince the people that have seen languages come and go. Especially these days when new languages have great documentation, error messages, and onboarding in general.
> The vast majority of people, when faced with a language that looks not great at the moment but could have a bright future, will react with "I'll take a look again in a year or two". You argue for the opposite, that people should contribute to Zig instead.
I'm trying EXACTLY to do that, and it's not logically inconsistent. I'm not sure why you are deliberately conflating "using a language" with "putting a (small) amount of money into a project". The exact point is "if you can't afford be present-focused in one way, be future-focused in a different way". I really don't have the energy to parse the rest of what you wrote.
Rust was announced in 2010. Rust in 2016 had documentation in better shape than current Zig, and was past 1.0. The difference seems to be that Zig was announced earlier in development. Considering how much I hear about Zig, I expected it to be futher along its development. Maybe not a 1.0, but at least good documentation to get started, to get lots of newcommers and thus lots of feedback. That's not the case, partially because the people behind Zig want to take a different approach, partially because it was announced earlier. This is perfectly fine, it's just surprising and a bit disappointing for people like me that watch Zig from afar. I understand that I'm not the main audience for Zig and have no problem with that.
1) I'm looking for the best, not the best by programmer hours or growth. Zig has accomplished a lot and I'm impressed by the work of people on it. But it's still a strictly worse option than many others. I think it's poised to be great in the future, but right now it's not good enough.
2) Organizations always become less effective as they grow, Zig being small would have an "unfair" advantage since they're still small.
3) Normalizing by programmer hours would lead you to a language that took a few hours to be developped, but is not good at all. This doesn't make sense.
I feel like you're evaluating Zig as if it was a company on which to invest. In that case, Zig is a good pick. It's small but already at a good point, and probably will have a good growth. But if you're looking for a supplier right now, I wouldn't bet on them. It's still small, young, and depend on a few people.