Whenever there is a post relating to Zig, I can always rely on you to post negative comments for no real reason. I can understand not liking the language, but this is about the C/C++ compilation toolchain, which uses clang under the hood. Even if you think Zig is the worst language in the world, you can still use the toolchain without having to deal with the language at all.
I guess my fundamental question is, what does your comment add to the conversation? It seems like you're not even disagreeing with the fundamental premise; you just felt the need to diminish Zig simply because someone tried to acknowledge that it was useful for something.
Had the OP not stated that "Zig is probably the most common tool to compile C/C++ to WebAssembly outside the browser,...", I wouldn't have said anything.
You say it yourself, this is about the C and C++ toolchain offered by clang, ergo not Zig.
I only reply on hype regarding Zig, like the previous remark, or it being "safe", when it is as safe as Modula-2 already was in 1978.
Which while miles beyond C, it wasn't without flaws.
As for what adds to the conversation, I guess taming a bit the hype, regardless of the language.
If you are so attentive, you will have remarked that I spare no language, all get their share.
Finally, if you don't like my comments, page down is your friend.
Not outside the browser, with WASI instead of a Javascript context.