This is one of the shining features of the language: either of these is a viable option. Zig is a great way to build C projects, with native cross-compiling, and the semantics make it straightforward to supply a C API for Zig libraries to add to existing code in C. Depending on the specifics, it can make sense for a C codebase to switch to Zig's build system just for excellent cross compilation, without writing anything in Zig.

I think once Zig stops being a moving target, we'll see an increasing number of C codebases writing some of the new code in Zig, moving over to the build system, and taking it from there. There are a lot of decisions which make this easy. As an example, idiomatic Zig code which allocates memory receives an Allocator, where C uses malloc and free. So there's a C allocator, which provides the Allocator interface to malloc and free, meaning Zig code can create objects and pass the memory to C, which can free it later.

There's a lot of C code out there which is working just fine, and if it ain't broke, no need to fix it. But if it's easy to do new work in a nicer language (to my taste, Zig is definitely that), why not? Then maybe rewrite some preprocessor-heavy C code using comptime.

The main thing holding this back (though it's already happening) is that Zig is pre-1.0. That imposes a maintenance burden which not everyone is willing to take on. But that won't last forever.

Now that you mention it I forgot an important one! I want to see the next VLC. And in fact J-B has mentioned on IRC that he would be interested to see contributions to the project using Zig.

I interpreted it as examples of excellent open source software that Andy wants to see more of. Not that those projects should be replaced.

Specifically, those are applications that are arguably better than their proprietary alternatives.

Perhaps we can se a

* DAW

* Photoshop alternative (no, gimp was never it)

* Video editor

Why contribute to a monopoly when you can lay the foundation for greener grass for more competitors?

There's arguments both ways; what it really boils down to is what you value.

I much prefer the pattern I've noticed with the recent generation of Go projects. What I mean is that I find myself more and more often going to a project's repository to check for an issue or open a pull request, only to find that it is written in Go. After the initial hype cycle, Go silently started being the engine many useful tools were written in. While I understand that Zig needs to have some level of getting the word out early on, ultimately having great projects arrive that are written in Zig (that don't need a "written in Zig" tag line as a sort of marketing gimmick) would be the best statement. This pattern I've observed with Go holds true for projects written in TypeScript, Python, and even C as well but Go is the more recent entry.

Effectively, less focus on slogans and more on great projects that solve actual problems. Sometimes moving in silence can speak volumes. (In chess, there's a saying: "Move in silence. Only speak when it's time to say, 'Checkmate.'")

But your sentiment was great! :D