The human psychology is intriguing. The more I see "... Zig ..." the stronger the urge to learn and build something with it becomes. In practice, though, I've found that building things with languages I am familiar with is more enjoyable for me, personally.

A severe case of mimetic desire. I suspect a lot of devs suffer from it.

Zig actually does bring some new and innovative ideas to programming. While Zig itself may not become the next big thing a lot of ideas in it most certainly will find their way into languages moving forward.

What would you say are the innovative ideas that have come out of Zig? I have played around with Zig a decent amount, and to me it seems more like a novel combination of an interesting set of pre-existing ideas.

it works like fashion in clothing.

One cool usage of Binfmt_misc is multi-platform builds in Docker (through QEMU), although it can be painfully slow.

I wonder if the compiler could still be a native binary (but still producing code for the target architecture). The motivation is to have the performance of a cross compile with the simplicity of a native build. I had that idea a long time ago but never tried it.

For languages that support cross-compiling e.g Golang, the Docker docs recommend cross-compiling natively and copying the resulting binary to the various platform images. binfmt_misc with QEMU is needed for languages that don't support that, or when you want to run a binary from the base image. For example, if you're building a x86 Docker image on ARM and you run `RUN apt install` in the Dockerfile, you're essentially running an x86 ELF on ARM, and that's where QEMU/binfmt_misc step in.

Context overload is definitely a problem with MCP, but its plug-and-play nature and discoverability are solid. Pasting a URL (or just using a button or other UX element) to link an MCP server presents a much lower barrier to entry than having the LLM run `cli-tool --help`, which assumes the CLI tool is already installed and the LLM has to know about it.

This is an interesting branding exercise. Presenting MCP as 'Apps' makes it sound more accessible, while tools and MCP server sound very technical. Add a demo with Expedia and Spotify and you have an MCP that's end-user ready.

Ye, that's basically an MCP server, that can be used by ChatGPT.

This is not just branding, MCP is an implementation detail; the product is chatting with apps.