I'm in a similar position, I want to learn both eventually but chose to start with Rust because it has several really strong-seeming (like the intro book, or Rust Atomics and Locks), while Zig doesn't have many books yet.
and yet there’s questions on the semi-official forum on how to read from files properly.
no, the docs really don’t cut it.
it is strongly opinionated about the correct way to do things but it leaves you to your own devices to piece together an understanding from source code, ziggit, and discord.
> and yet there’s questions on the semi-official forum on how to read from files properly.
That is currently in the process of changing. Of course people are discussing things that are changing.
> no, the docs really don’t cut it.
Yes they do :) - source: have written multiple small projects in Zig.
I encourage you to actually read the page I linked from top to bottom if you are interested in learning Zig. I did it because mitchellh mentioned in an interview that it's what he did. It's easy to follow, useful, and not an overwhelming amount of information.
i know zig, i’ve been using it for a few years, i have multiple small projects as well. zig ref is fine, i’m critical of std. the source code has always been the main source of documentation. which means no documentation. std is littered with undocumented behaviours, the build system is still something many people use half-blind.
i’m fine with breaking changes, but the way they’re just dropped onto our laps with almost zero thought put into how to present it. (i started to feel almost as if patiently introducing the concepts and interfaces is one of those things that is below andrew)
while i admit that zig’s authors’ claim to technical excellence is deserved, communication has never been close to it.
and then i’m sure there are people who would gladly involve themselves in documentation efforts, but the chances of receiving andrew’s ire and demeaning disposition are so great that it might be paralysing such efforts leaving it to the Guy himself.
