Zig is first and foremost a C compiler with cross-compilation being first class citizen so you can't really compare the two.
> Rather than developing and increasingly insular (navel-gazing?) ecosystem, it might be better to work on the root problem.
Every language has its own development budget and must focus on what makes more sense. Zig has great cross-compiling story and C is first class, Rust has a stable language, a compiler that doesn't crash and emits readable error messages, one has to set its priorities.
The good thing with zig is that you can use the zig compiler within Rust project to cross-compile C code (cargo-zigbuild IIRC) so you can have a cake and eat it too.
This is a very uninformed take. It's not a Cargo or Go problem, it's a C problem. It only works well with Zig because Zig goes to insane lengths to hide the problem.
In fact it's so much of a C problem that lots of people even cross-compile their pure C code with Zig, because Zig handles all of the C mess!
Perhaps instead the more constructive path would have been to try and defend why one (cargo, rust) cannot do what another (zig) can.
So far, all I can infer is an acceptance of how compiling C code is hard and rather messy. I am no more uninformed on this than this literally being a daily fact of my paid life, but do go on, tell me how I've missed the point.
The condescending tone started with you calling projects "deficient" for not handling problems well they don't want to handle. Yes, a C compiler is good at C things. It's not "deficient" if that C compiler sucks at integrating BASIC code.
`cargo cross` exists, which can help but it's really a kludge.