Zig is hard but worth it

I've now written a lot of zig code (http.zig, websocket.zig, log.zig, zuckdb.zig, etc.) I think Zig falls into an "easy to learn, average/hard to master" category.

Some insiders underestimate the effort required for newcomers to build non-trivial things. I think this is because some of that complexity has to do with things like poor documentation, inconsistent stdlib, incompatible releases, slow release cycle, lack of package manager, etc. For an insider living and breathing Zig, not only aren't these huge challenges, they aren't really "Zig" - they are just transient growing pains. For someone getting started though, the current state of Zig is Zig.

I wish Zig had a polished package manager (there's one in the current development branch, but you don't as much use it as fight it). They could then move some of the less polished code into official experimental packages, helping to set expectations and maybe focus the development efforts.

I've lately thought that a package manager is as essential to a new language as a standard library. I would also add a LSP and standard code formatter to that list.

It is a bit unfortunate because all of the above is a pretty tall order. We're getting to the point that new languages are expected to boil the ocean by the time they reach 1.0

I disagree. I actively avoid languages that rely on package managers simply because they only give the illusion of being beneficial. It ends up being more boilerplate I have to learn to use an ecosystem, because they don't actually solve dependency hell and now there's a whole additional complicated tool with its own DSL I have to contend with in order to fix what's broken (or even diagnose issues.)

The more peripheral crap I have to deal with to use your language, the less I'm likely to use it in the first place. I don't need, want or care to learn yet another idiosyncratic fragile system. Finding source tarballs is a complete non-issue, and inevitably I'm going to have to manually build things anyways to figure out what erroneous assumption a library is making about the underlying system which is causing the build to fail or the runtime to crash, so the package manager just ends up being extra steps. Without fail, that has always been my experience with language package managers.

In the pursuit of making things simpler, we're really just making them harder.

I agree entirely. Relying on a package manager in order for a language to be useful indicates to me that there's a deficiency in the language.

Is every language supposed to come with HTTP and TLS stack, clients for every database, de/serializers for every format, every image and video codec, every de/compressor, GUI toolkits, 3D rendering, Bluetooth… where do you stop?

And then how do you maintain all of this bloat to a competitive level, so that users don't need to reach for faster/newer alternative packages anyway?

And how do you maintain portability and backward compatibility of a language with such a vast API surface?

In modern development there's just too much stuff to keep everyone happy with batteries included. Sooner or later users will need something that isn't built in, and that will cause pain and crappy workarounds if the language doesn't have first-class support for dependencies.