For me it's all comptime stuff and it's kind of arbitrary things like parsing out the type information of a function doesn't include the name of the function parameters, but basically everything else that has a name has that information present in their info structure. The other thing is tags, being able to tag things that I can parse at compile time. I'm making something close to a database orm, (specifically it's spacetimedb, thought it'd be fun to use zig with). But information about things like primary keys, auto increments, constraints and similar all has to live in a different structure completely untied to the original struct or function. I'd like to be able to tie those things together easily to avoid mistakes and confusion. I have different workarounds that I've tried, but nothing that's universal for all my test cases.

For syntax there are a few things that I'm iffy on, but nothing that I'd consider a deal breaker. I found it very easy to read right out of the gate, which is basically the only thing I need to really learn a new language (probably the only reason I haven't learned rust yet.)

Thanks for the reply.

I totally understand how those two features could be useful.

For the parameter name feature, I can't imagine a strong reason for not implementing it (I mean, apart of "we have other stuff to prioritize").

For the tag I could see an attribute system like in C++ [0]

On a tangential topic, I believe that's exactly the Pandora box of meta-programming.

[0] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/attributes#Explan...

Just wanted to say that Rust may look strange early on but very, very quickly becomes entirely natural, so don't let that be the reason why you haven't learned it is my unsolicited input