When someone's communication is casual and informal, without any context, you really can't distinguish between:

* The author is being flippant and not taking the situation seriously enough.

* The author is presuming a high-trust audience that knows that they have done all the due diligence and don't have to restate all of that.

In this case, it's a devlog (i.e. not a "marketing post") for a language that isn't at 1.0 yet. A certain amount of "if you're here, you probably have some background" is probably reasonable.

The post does link directly to the PR and the PR has a lot more context that clearly conveys the author knows what they are doing.

It is weird reading about (minor) breaking language changes sort of mentioned in passing. We're used to languages being extremely stable. But Zig isn't 1.0 yet. Andrew and friends certainly take user stability seriously, but you signed up for a certain amount of breakage if you pick the language today.

As someone who maintains a post-1.0 language, there really is a lot of value in breaking changes like this. It's good to fix things while your userbase is small. It's maddening to have to live with obvious warts in the language simply because the userbase got too big for you to feasibly fix it, even when all the users wish you could fix it too. (Witness: The broken precedence of bitwise operators in C.)

It's better for all future users to get the language as clean and solid as you can while it's still malleable.