Rust needs macros because the language is extremely strict and verbose. Macros are the main escape hatch, allowing you to simplify your code while maintaining memory safety without a GC.
Zig doesn't have memory safety as a goal so it seems like an unfair comparison.
fn pin(x: T) -> Pin<&mut T> { ... }
I won't respond further.
> It would be perfectly possible to design a variant of Rust that gets you to 80-90% of Rust's usability, with the same safety, without macros.
i then present an api that i think relies on macros to expose a safe api
> Of course macros are good for encapsulation and abstraction, but that's a different subject.
no it's not. exposing safe abstractions is pretty much rust's raison d'être
The "comparison" (it isn't one--it's a technical point; "fairness" is not remotely relevant--Rust isn't being attacked and doesn't need defending) is between a language with macros and a language without macros--why the languages have or don't have macros isn't relevant.
Zig is strict and verbose and could benefit from macros but for numerous reasons doesn't have them.
Zig also has no GC and does have memory safety as a goal (but not the primary one, and not provable memory safety)--but none of this is at all relevant to the point the OP made, which is strictly about one language having macros and the other language not having them.