Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Game Jam 2 Results

wasm4.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 193 posts

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#91

Post by alpaca128 »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #53
TakeBlaster16 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. If Zig takes 100ms to compile, and Rust takes 2s, but you just spent 20 seconds commenting unused vars in your Zig code, then the slow compiler comes out ahead. It's a great example of how good UX can be more important than raw performance numbers.

Yes, but you comment out unused variable once per variable (you can leave those underscores in and clear them out before release). The 2s happens every time you compile . The badness of slow compiles is non-linear, too. As you start to get to 30s, the likelihood that you check Facebook, Twitter, or hn goes up. At least when you're underscoring unused vars you're doing something active . If it gets to 2-5 minutes the…

> (you can leave those underscores in and clear them out before release)

You can leave those "unused variable" warnings and fix them before release

The difference is that warnings are visible, the underscores however suppressed the compiler's ability to help you.

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#92

Post by TakeBlaster16 »

refulgentis wrote: post #74
TakeBlaster16 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the one thing keeping me from considering Zig for new projects right now. If some enterprising young developer is reading this and wants to make a name for themselves, you should fork the Zig compiler and change those errors to warnings. It would be an extremely popular project. EDIT: I'll even give you a catchy project name. Wig: Zig with Warnings

You should also consider that optimizing for incorrectness and prototyping speed might not be the professionally responsible choice in 2022.

"Optimizing for incorrectness" is a funny way to describe the practice of enforcing lint checks as part of a CI pipeline.

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#93

Post by TakeBlaster16 »

hu3 wrote: post #86
davidjfelix wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which language is the one where you make sweeping generalizations?

It's funny you say that when a rustacean just posted below that it is irresponsible to use unsafe languages. Instead of focusing on tradeoffs they chose to call others irresponsible.

> It's funny you say that when [member of group] just [did something once]. It's not a sweeping generalization! They always do this!

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#94

Post by refulgentis »

TakeBlaster16 wrote: post #92
refulgentis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should also consider that optimizing for incorrectness and prototyping speed might not be the professionally responsible choice in 2022.

"Optimizing for incorrectness" is a funny way to describe the practice of enforcing lint checks as part of a CI pipeline.

You're right, the provocation here is engaging in intentionally choosing a language, and choosing Zig, is optimizing for incorrectness. I didn't mean the flag.

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#95

Post by pron »

refulgentis wrote: post #72
TakeBlaster16 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zig is the new HN clickbait, taking over Rust's spot. That's a good sign for the language, honestly

Good sign for the language, bad sign for HN. I totally get it's nicer than C, I love it too, but it's completely irresponsible to push a language without a memory safety story, in 2022, this hard. From that relatively obvious conclusion it devolves into tedious nerdsnipes. Yes there are edge cases.

Zig has a pretty good memory safety story -- and more generally, a correctness story -- it's just a different story from Rust's. I find it funny that fans of a language of a not-so-young-age that is struggling to find relevance and capture even 1% of the market are treating it as such an inevitability that it's irresponsible to talk about anything else. It's also detached from reality, as much of the software we all depend on is being written, in 2022, in languages without sound memory safety guarantees. There are various approaches being tried for how we should write low-level programs in the future, but there is no consensus yet on the best one.

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#96

Post by hhmc »

vanderZwan wrote: post #60
hhmc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be missing the whole point being made — they are unused because of (temporary) changes during prototyping .

Ah yes, prototyping. The stage of coding where one has lots of snippets of code meant for trying things out quickly. Definitely a context full of long chains of dependent variables.

One might imagine prototyping new functionality in a existing, complex, codebase..

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#97

Post by tadfisher »

hu3 wrote: post #86
davidjfelix wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which language is the one where you make sweeping generalizations?

It's funny you say that when a rustacean just posted below that it is irresponsible to use unsafe languages. Instead of focusing on tradeoffs they chose to call others irresponsible.

That comment does not mention Rust.

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#98

Post by pcwalton »

pron wrote: post #95
refulgentis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good sign for the language, bad sign for HN. I totally get it's nicer than C, I love it too, but it's completely irresponsible to push a language without a memory safety story, in 2022, this hard. From that relatively obvious conclusion it devolves into tedious nerdsnipes. Yes there are edge cases.

Zig has a pretty good memory safety story -- and more generally, a correctness story -- it's just a different story from Rust's. I find it funny that fans of a language of a not-so-young-age that is struggling to find relevance and capture even 1% of the market are treating it as such an inevitability that it's irresponsible to talk about anything else. It's also detached from reality, as much of the software we all…

> Zig has a pretty good memory safety story

No, Zig is simply not memory safe. That's a property of a programming language that has a definition. Zig does not meet that definition.

> I find it funny that fans of a language of a not-so-young-age that is struggling to find relevance and capture even 1% of the market are treating it as such an inevitability that it's irresponsible to talk about anything else.

Leaving aside your weird description of a language powering software that serves billions of users as "struggling to find relevance", most software in 2022 is written in languages that are memory safe. Zig is quite the outlier here. It would in fact be very reasonable to survey the landscape of popular languages today and come to the conclusion that memory safety is an inevitability.

> It's also detached from reality, as much of the software we all depend on is being written, in 2022, in languages without sound memory safety guarantees.

Virtually all of that software is being developed in C or C++. The most compelling reason to use those languages is that they have a huge install base and a huge amount of code already written in them. This says nothing about whether a brand-new language should be memory safe.

> There are various approaches being tried for how we should write low-level programs in the future, but there is no consensus yet on the best one.

No, there actually is PL consensus that all new languages should be memory-safe, maybe aside from very low-level specialized languages, which Zig is not trying to be--Zig is trying to be a general purpose language.

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#99

Post by pcwalton »

skohan wrote: post #87
refulgentis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good sign for the language, bad sign for HN. I totally get it's nicer than C, I love it too, but it's completely irresponsible to push a language without a memory safety story, in 2022, this hard. From that relatively obvious conclusion it devolves into tedious nerdsnipes. Yes there are edge cases.

That's a rather extreme position.

It's not an extreme position. Most languages in wide use, and virtually all new languages, are memory safe. Zig is an extreme outlier in this regard.

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#100

Post by pron »

pcwalton wrote: post #98
pron wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zig has a pretty good memory safety story -- and more generally, a correctness story -- it's just a different story from Rust's. I find it funny that fans of a language of a not-so-young-age that is struggling to find relevance and capture even 1% of the market are treating it as such an inevitability that it's irresponsible to talk about anything else. It's also detached from reality, as much of the software we all…

> Zig has a pretty good memory safety story No, Zig is simply not memory safe. That's a property of a programming language that has a definition. Zig does not meet that definition. > I find it funny that fans of a language of a not-so-young-age that is struggling to find relevance and capture even 1% of the market are treating it as such an inevitability that it's irresponsible to talk about anything else. Leaving as…

> No, Zig is simply not memory safe.

I didn't claim that it is. I said it has a good memory safety story, i.e. mechanisms that soundly guarantee some kinds of memory safety, plus a design that helps write correct programs. Correctness in general, and memory safety in particular, are very central concerns in Zig's design, it's just that its story isn't one of sound guarantees across the board but, rather, some balanced mix of approaches -- some based on soundness, others based on facilitating comprehension and easier testing.

> Most software in 2022 is written in languages that are memory safe. Zig is quite the outlier here.

No, Zig is a low-level language, and the vast majority of low-level programs in 2022 are written in languages whose memory-safety story is worse than Zig's.

> This says nothing about whether a brand-new language should be memory safe.

That's right. We don't yet have an answer to that question, because we don't yet have sufficient experience with low-level languages that do have sound memory safety guarantees. I mean, it sure is better to have more guarantees if they come for free, but there's no such option in front of us just yet.

> No, there actually is PL consensus that all new languages should be memory-safe

No, there really isn't one when it comes to low-level languages (and the interest in Zig is proof that there is no consensus that it shouldn't exist). Rust is a low level language with sound memory safety guarantees, which comes at a price that makes it unappealing for some, and so various other approaches are being tried as well.

You can't insist there's consensus when clearly there are people who disagree with you. That's the definition of a lack of consensus. I also think it is premature, to say the least, to declare an approach that is currently still far from proving a success as the only way.

Post reply on HN