zig-clap VS mach-gpu-dawn

Zig and Rust both promote explicit error handling, however their mechanisms are different. Rust uses Result enums, while Zig uses a (global) error set type (though similar to an enum) and error propagation. Similarly, Rust uses the Option enum for optional types, while Zig uses a type modifier (?T). Both offer modern, syntactic sugar to handle those (call()? and if let Some(value) = optional {} in Rust, try call() and if (optional) |value| {} in Zig). Since Rust uses the standard library to implement error handling and options, users have the possibility to extend those systems which is quite powerful. However, I like the approach Zig takes in providing those things as language features. While their approach fits well into the C universe, I dislike that there is no pragmatic way to add more context to an error (but well, no allocations). Libraries like [clap](https://github.com/Hejsil/zig-clap) solve this by implementing a diagnostics mechanism.

It's somewhat early, but there are libraries like https://github.com/Hejsil/zig-clap that can make writing CLIs a bit easier.

Command line args: std.process or the zig-clap library

It's using a Dawn a couple months out of date, but there's this: https://github.com/hexops/mach-gpu-dawn

When reading "wgpu", I wondered if it used the WebGPU implementation of the same name (wgpu) rather than Dawn. It may be worth changing mentions of "wgpu" to "WebGPU" in zgpu (and these titles) similar to how its dependency, mach-gpu-dawn, uses these names,