I don't think Rust users are relevant here. It primarily comes down to personal preferences, and since Zig and Rust are so different, some will be drawn to Rust and others to Zig. If you really like a language and it suits your needs, be it Rust or any other, there's no need to look to switch. I think that the audience Zig is aimed at is low-level programmers who haven't taken a liking to Rust, which is the majority of them. Rust isn't very popular among experienced low-level programmers (certainly for a language that old), and I guess Zig is hoping to be more to their liking.

For example, I find Rust to be far too similar to C++, and it shares most of the problems I have with C++ only with much lower adoption. I'm not saying I'm ready to make the switch, but at least Zig offers a different approach that's intriguing to me.

Try it if you want full control over every memory and IO operation and "drop". If you hit "goto-definition", you eventually get to see the OS switch statements and syscalls. There's not much magic.

Do not try it if you are scared of memory management and memory leaks.

Not working within the bounds of lifetimes, and more ecosystem that doesn't live in the world of lifetimes, gives Zig some of the wonderful dev ergonomics of Rust while making it easier to prototype.

For small, short game dev, or even smaller embedded projects, this ends up being a wonderful way to live as often times you're trying to eke out performance in ways that would require breaking out of whatever type abstractions or using unsafe.

For long-lived systems, for systems that need to have lots of people with various skill levels work on them, for a mature ecosystem, for a language/standard library with stability... You probably don't want to pick Zig right now. Some of these points will change over time with Zig becoming more mature, some won't. Zig will always be super cool to build things in.

As far as most low-level programmers not liking Rust like some other commenters say, lol, lmao even.