Only in the sense that the language is simple and small, but C pays for that by being inexpressive (you can find families of C++ programs for which an equivalent C program would require exponentially more code). Zig, on the other hand, is small and simple while being just as expressive as C++. It achieves that through a remarkable observation: many primitive features can be avoided with a powerful enough compile-time computation mechanism with introspection.
Zig is so revolutionary in its design that it's hard to compare it to anything else. Or, put another way, any comparison is sure to miss out on some very foundational piece. So yes, in some sense Zig is like C (simple, low-level), but it's as expressive as C++. In another sense, Zig is like Scheme (minimalistic elegance), and yet it feels familiar and it does not rely on macros for its core power. In other ways it's like Go (easy to learn, easy cross-compilation), but it gives full control and is more flexible.
At this point, Zig is sui generis.
I mean, Zig has an interesting combination of functionality, but I wouldn't say that the individual pieces are revolutionary. Who knows though, the whole could be more revolutionary than the sum of it's parts...
Zig's comptime is revolutionary and really new in that it replaces many other separate features and is the basis of Zig's minimalism. Figuring out how to discard features is much more difficult than adding them, and simplicity is something that's impossible to add once it's lost. The message is not the existence of a rather general compile time execution, but that with a particular design of such a mechanism you can do away with other things.
Many developers underestimate the importance of metaprogramming in systems languages for ensuring quality and security. Defects scale proportional to the lines of code. Strong metaprogramming facilities can reduce the lines of code required several-fold.
D also has a betterC mode that removes some of those "kitchen sink" features, but I couldn't say how popular it's use is. Many people who use D like some of those features. Zig's more minimalistic approach to language features is closer to C's approach.
Zig likely has been influenced by D (among other languages), but I wouldn't be surprised if D's new importC functionality has been influenced by Zig.
I don't use D (or C or C++) at work, but learning D and using it at home has made me a much better programmer in the languages I use for work. Maybe I would have learned those lessons with C or C++, but I guess I took more easily to D than them.
You're agreeing with me then! D was pretty explicitly created due to WalterBright's (incidentally a prolific 60k+-karma HN user!), frustration with C++ and presumably the problems that stem from its requirement to maintain almost a 100% C compatibility. Bright is the founder of Digital Mars, a small company developing C and C++ (and D) compilers, so he has first-hand experience. Since 2007 D has been co-developed by Andrei Alexandrescu, a well-known C++ expert and one of the pioneers of template metaprogramming.
but i agree with D being a kitchen sink language, trying to be many things, but never being the absolute best at anything, which i think is why it never really took off
i am really hopeful for Zig, trying to be a more pragmatic C replacement
I think "cult following" is used here like you would for movies, it’s not actually cult-like, it’s more that it’s a rather small, close-knit community.