> however I'm beginning to think that their greater contribution is ghostty
Is that meant as an argument in favor of "another $400k for Zig" or against it?
I like Ghostty, but investing $800k to develop a programming language that is primarily known for producing a terminal emulator doesn't sound like a particularly strong argument in its favor.
Is this really recognition for what Zig has already achieved, or is it simply another way of financing its future development?
Mitchell clearly benefits from Zig succeeding. Well, some of his products depend on it. From a cynical point of view, donating nearly a million dollars is also a way to gain soft power over the language's future direction...
I'm not suggesting that's his motivation though... I'm just asking whether someone who funds such a large share of a language's development inevitably ends up influencing its direction, even if he don't formally control the project.
Is that meant as an argument in favor of "another $400k for Zig" or against it?
I like Ghostty, but investing $800k to develop a programming language that is primarily known for producing a terminal emulator doesn't sound like a particularly strong argument in its favor.
Genuine question. I’m not trolling.