It is of course an exaggeration, but that's what is somewhat annoying to me.
But dismissing this point by just saying me "get better" after literally years of using Rust is a bit of a weak point, or am i in the wrong here?
And it's not even that i dislike the language, but this is evangelism to just dismiss the point of my argument with "skill issue". A tool isn't supposed to be difficult, it should help you in whatever you're trying to achieve, not making it more difficult.
It also drives me insane when i dump the problems i have with Rust about this exact issue, that i usually have to restructure my code to satisfy the compilers needs, and they come at me with the "Skill Issue" club...
I honestly don't even know what to respond to that, but it's kind of weird to me to honestly think that you'd need essentially a "PhD" in order to use a tool...
There's also a fundamental difference in Zig and Rust.
Ever tried reading std code in Rust? If you have, you would notice one thing really quick: it's borderline unreadable. It's a hornet's nest of Generics over constraint generics calling into indirections.
Of course, this isn't meant to be a defense for the lack of documentation on Zig's side, but in my experience, Zig's code definetly is much easier to read, just because for the fact, that Rust's std code is akin to C++'s stl.
One of the personal grimes i have with Zig is, that `anytype` makes the function contract kind of meaningless, because you can't see what is expected purely on the function definition.