I have never heard anyone calling Zig "famously simple" before. In fact, people tend to say it has quite the learning curve.
Of course, caveats apply: it is certainly simple compared to some languages, but certainly not compared to others. "Famously simple" seems to indicate it is one of the simplest languages to learn, which seems wrong unless there are some serious qualifications to that statement?
C, C++, Rust, Zig. Rust and C++ have an infamous learning curve. If you know anything about using any systems language other than Zig, Zig is incredibly simple to pick up, like C. Unlike C, it pushes you toward making less mistakes.
If you don't know anything about using a systems language, Zig makes it easier for the people who do to review your code and make sure you didn't mess it up. It does this with very intentional design that makes it easier to understand the full impact of code quickly, reducing the cost of review, making review practical to catch the issues. It also has many other fail safes to catch these problems before they ever reach a production release.
So, yeah, it's totally depending on where you are coming from -- but Zig is not a tool built for a web developer who doesn't know anything about memory to go and ship an application within their first week. It does make it easier for that person to learn the ropes at a steady pace.
Meanwhile, everyone complaining that Zig is not memory safe doesn't seem to care that applications written in Zig do not have the vulnerabilities that memory safety solves on the scale that C does[0].
If you have not written a real application in Zig and evaluated it for vulnerabilities, but are claiming that creating Zig was irresponsible, and using it is too; you are cargo culting.
If you have, you probably understand there is a niche that Zig fits in and that it isn't surprising it exists to fill it. Like all things in our industry, there is a cost/benefit analysis required for choosing the tools you build with.
No one reasonable has claimed that memory safe languages should not exist, but there is a maddening number of people being disrespectful toward those who think there are other ways of addressing the same problems.
If you are comparing Zig to Rust and C++, which are very well known to be difficult to learn, then that is not really saying anything about the ease of learning it. Compare it to Swift, D or Odin. Is it "incredibly simple" compared to those languages as well?
Similarly, one can claim that pretty much anything compiles "incredibly fast" if one compares with Rust, C++ and Swift.
But comparing to worst in class doesn't actually say anything.
One note about this:
> If you have not written a real application in Zig and evaluated it for vulnerabilities, but are claiming that creating Zig was irresponsible, and using it is too; you are cargo culting.
I don't know what this has to do with my comments at all, but I want to point out that you are using "cargo culting" wrong. This describes imitating practices of something successful, thinking that by this imitation, success will follow as well.
> No one reasonable has claimed that memory safe languages should not exist,
Again, I have not talked anything about whether memory safe languages should or should not exist. You are confusing me with someone else.
Marketing speak, that looks to be trying to put Zig over languages like Golang, Vlang, etc... which are well known for their simplicity and readability. The false hype arguably creates confusion, that Zig can be "all things to all people", when it's not.
Of course, caveats apply: it is certainly simple compared to some languages, but certainly not compared to others. "Famously simple" seems to indicate it is one of the simplest languages to learn, which seems wrong unless there are some serious qualifications to that statement?