Assumption 2: the more we do with a language, the bigger the language has to be.
I am sceptical about (1), and the only way (2) can possibly be true is if the standard library is part of the language (which it really is not: it's user space stuff, curated approved by whoever's in charge). Don't be excessively pessimistic. It's just as irrational as misguided optimism.
In regards to assumption 1: zig's documentation isn't the greatest, and it's still pre 1.0 which may have turned many potential users away for the moment.
I think the person you were replying to implies that after a certain point (1.0 release?), Zig's userbase will increase to such levels that it can be considered "used" by (many) people
My guess is, a few hundred users are enough to identify and correct most of what's missing in the language. Going from there to a million users is unlikely to make a big difference. Especially if the language's features are orthogonal (apparently they are), and the scope of the language is clear (the intended use case at least seems to be).
We'll see how it goes. I won't bet my hat on it, but Zig does seem to be on a good path to stay simple even as it matures.
