<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>AndyKelley</author><text>quoting myself [1]:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;It&amp;#x27;s really easy to make fun of C++, but everyone has that one feature of C++ that they like. And they want to put it in Zig. If everyone had their favorite feature from C++ in Zig, Zig would just be C++. But I&amp;#x27;m not going to let that happen.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;youtu.be&amp;#x2F;Gv2I7qTux7g?t=454&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;youtu.be&amp;#x2F;Gv2I7qTux7g?t=454&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>ta_ca</author><text>my &lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt; beef with zig&amp;#x2F;jai is that they both have strong opinions on things like operator overloading and i am afraid they will end up just like java.&lt;p&gt;i have nothing against having strong opinions, i am the biggest offender but completely disallowing some features, some of the best features static typing can offer is just nonsense.&lt;p&gt;every language designer should study common-lisp and start with the operators : and :: these two operators alone tell you that the language designed for practical use.&lt;p&gt;for me overloading the operator + and function &amp;#x27;add&amp;#x27; is exactly same. you should then forbid function overloading as well now. you can argue about the weakness of operator overloading but disabling completely, not even a workaround?&lt;p&gt;why not just enable oo and have &lt;i&gt;safe&lt;/i&gt; alternatives instead?
. safe(a + b)
. a s+ b</text></item><item><author>stephc_int13</author><text>I am rarely impressed by new languages, I tend to think we already have too many, a lot of them are slow and or redundant.&lt;p&gt;But I like to see the emergence of a few sane proposals to replace C&amp;#x2F;C++, I&amp;#x27;ve been extremely impressed so far by the work done by the team behind Zig.&lt;p&gt;The best feature, from my perspective, is that Zig does not intend to be a better C++ but a better C.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Building an efficient and portable programming language with Zig</title><url>https://www.fastly.com/blog/building-an-efficient-and-portable-programming-language-with-zig</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>stephc_int13</author><text>In my opinion, operators overloading could be safely used if they were explicit.&lt;p&gt;With something like that:&lt;p&gt;var x = a [+] b;&lt;p&gt;There is no possible mistake.</text><parent_chain><item><author>ta_ca</author><text>my &lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt; beef with zig&amp;#x2F;jai is that they both have strong opinions on things like operator overloading and i am afraid they will end up just like java.&lt;p&gt;i have nothing against having strong opinions, i am the biggest offender but completely disallowing some features, some of the best features static typing can offer is just nonsense.&lt;p&gt;every language designer should study common-lisp and start with the operators : and :: these two operators alone tell you that the language designed for practical use.&lt;p&gt;for me overloading the operator + and function &amp;#x27;add&amp;#x27; is exactly same. you should then forbid function overloading as well now. you can argue about the weakness of operator overloading but disabling completely, not even a workaround?&lt;p&gt;why not just enable oo and have &lt;i&gt;safe&lt;/i&gt; alternatives instead?
. safe(a + b)
. a s+ b</text></item><item><author>stephc_int13</author><text>I am rarely impressed by new languages, I tend to think we already have too many, a lot of them are slow and or redundant.&lt;p&gt;But I like to see the emergence of a few sane proposals to replace C&amp;#x2F;C++, I&amp;#x27;ve been extremely impressed so far by the work done by the team behind Zig.&lt;p&gt;The best feature, from my perspective, is that Zig does not intend to be a better C++ but a better C.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Building an efficient and portable programming language with Zig</title><url>https://www.fastly.com/blog/building-an-efficient-and-portable-programming-language-with-zig</url></story>