This is a fairly close 1-1 copy of the original example from raylib, and thus might not represent completely idiomatic or clean zig.

This raises the question: Should raylib-zig examples use more idiomatic Zig concepts and design patterns? Straying a little away from the original Raylib C examples. For example, instead of

const Player = struct {
    ...
};

fn updatePlayer(player: *Player, ...) void {
    ...
}

We do

const Player = struct {
    ...
    
    fn update(self: *Player, ...) void {
        ...
    }
};

Let's use decl literals so we don't have to do https://github.com/Not-Nik/raylib-zig/pull/221 all over again

Neat! TIL. Done.

Should raylib-zig examples use more idiomatic Zig concepts and design patterns?

If so, I'm a relative zig novice, and I don't feel like I have a good handle on what would be idiomatic. On the one hand I think there is a certain didactic value to mimicking the C examples 1:1, so that readers can easily cross-compare. However on the other, these examples should ideally represent best-practices with the library.

This is a learning exercise for me, so I'm happy to implement whatever other folks decide.