Zig's New Relationship with LLVM
kristoff.it
Zig's New Relationship with LLVM
1–10 of 295 posts
Re: Zig's New Relationship with LLVM
#2This looks amazing, as do many of Zig's features (e.g. comptime). It's hard to go back to memory errors after Rust, but I hope Zig becomes popular enough with some people (those that don't care about security? maybe game developers?) that it influences future languages.
Re: Zig's New Relationship with LLVM
#3I always like innovations in programming tooling. To me zig sounds like a system language written by system programmers, while rust is more influenced from FP and webdev communities, which is reflected in both tooling and language. To people asking why zig when there's rust, both are nice in different ways.
Re: Zig's New Relationship with LLVM
#4I hope they will make it also reproducible [1] and easily bootstrappable [2], for easier porting to new platforms.
Re: Zig's New Relationship with LLVM
#5I always like innovations in programming tooling. To me zig sounds like a system language written by system programmers, while rust is more influenced from FP and webdev communities, which is reflected in both tooling and language. To people asking why zig when there's rust, both are nice in different ways.
I think Zig will reserve a few interesting surprises also in the webdev world, it just needs a bit more time to get there.
Re: Zig's New Relationship with LLVM
#6I hope they will make it also reproducible [1] and easily bootstrappable [2], for easier porting to new platforms. [1] https://reproducible-builds.org/ [2] https://bootstrappable.org/
Quick bootstrapping is one of the goals for 1.0. Related issue: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/6378
Re: Zig's New Relationship with LLVM
#7I don't understand the "in-place binary patching" bit. Does it literally mean that the compiler opens the existing binary in a write-but-do-not truncate mode, leaves most bits in place, and only changes others in certain places? Is this expected to be that much faster than writing the whole binary anew? What other benefits is this supposed to have? The article doesn't seem to say.
Also, how does this relate to the observation just above that "the right-most box is always invalidated ... the final executable is always re-linked from scratch ... since the final executable depends on everything else"? Does linking somehow get faster or easier with in-place patching?
Re: Zig's New Relationship with LLVM
#8I always like innovations in programming tooling. To me zig sounds like a system language written by system programmers, while rust is more influenced from FP and webdev communities, which is reflected in both tooling and language. To people asking why zig when there's rust, both are nice in different ways.
I just dislike the way stuff gets imported const std = @import("std").
Too much require.js look alike.
Re: Zig's New Relationship with LLVM
#9This looks amazing, as do many of Zig's features (e.g. comptime). It's hard to go back to memory errors after Rust, but I hope Zig becomes popular enough with some people (those that don't care about security? maybe game developers?) that it influences future languages.
Unless we get "Unreal/Unity for Zig" not really.
Re: Zig's New Relationship with LLVM
#10This is interesting stuff. Could you comment about optimization? LLVM has put a lot of effort into optimizing code at various levels, including the LTO stuff. Will Zig match all this by itself, or will a 'Release mode' still use LLVM to produce a final version?