I disagree on many points the article makes, but it is well written and lays out its arguments well.
One example - I prefer the named fields of Zig over Odin's use of positional fields. Zig's syntax is the more popular one as of late, heck even C has named struct member initialization.
IMHO Positional is just asking for trouble. Yes it works fine for game programming, and not having to specify x and y thousands of times in a code base is nice, but for general purpose languages where a struct can have a dozen+ fields to init, positional assignment is how bugs are made.
One example - I prefer the named fields of Zig over Odin's use of positional fields. Zig's syntax is the more popular one as of late, heck even C has named struct member initialization.
IMHO Positional is just asking for trouble. Yes it works fine for game programming, and not having to specify x and y thousands of times in a code base is nice, but for general purpose languages where a struct can have a dozen+ fields to init, positional assignment is how bugs are made.