Here are some opinions shared by ddevault: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15494222
> I’m interested to see how it measures up under more typical workloads. People keep asking me what I think about Zig in general, and I think it has potential, but I also have a lot of complaints. It’s not likely to replace C for me, but it might have a place somewhere in my stack.
I know that it is miles different then posting direct link, because people are averse to any kind of work, but I found the site in the first search. Searching for "drew devault programming language" gives me the language homepage as the 5th result.
EDIT: Also looking on the blog page which is the result from the search mentioned above there is no warning there, that's also why I didn't payed much attention to the warning, as I just stripped the path leaving only the hostname part. Sorry again.
With cross-platform standards like OpenGL, POSIX, Vulkan the API is declared in terms of high-level ANSI C or C99 language constructs and binary constants may be unspecified and left up to vendor.
Ideally new language designers which don't want to support H files would propose an even simpler header file format for listing procedures, enumerations, structs, constants that existing C compilers could also support. Library vendors don't have time to generate header bindings for every new language using language specific constructs, and application developers don't have time to manually write bindings for large libraries when testing new languages.
Zig supports C header parsing, but as you mention is based on LLVM. It also allows defining new functions inside structs and return values, which can result in heavily nested code that some programmers may not be a fan of.
So there is theoretically some room for another language which maintains compatibility with C headers (or defines an even simpler header format which can be supported by C compilers), which does not use LLVM, and which maintains stronger conceptual separation between namespaces and structs.