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

Zig: A new direction for low-level programming?

bitshifters.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 110 posts

Re: Zig: A new direction for low-level programming?

#61

Post by stephc_int13 »

cadu2 wrote: post #45
stephc_int13 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust is a bit different, more like a C++ replacement and heavily focused on so-called memory safety, but with IMO many bad design decisions, while I consider Zig/Jai/Odin as merely "meh" I think that Rust is bad.

Can you comment you some of these decisions in Rust that you feel are bad? I enjoy the language and have done quite a bit of work with it so I might be blinded/biased. I feel some warts here and there (async fns, anyone?), but overall the thing works and `cargo` is really a blessing.

Horrendous compilation time. Unnecessary complexity everywhere, basically C++ but worse.

Re: Zig: A new direction for low-level programming?

#62

Post by pron »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #25

I've been closely following and evaluating the train of C replacement languages that was (I believe) started by Jonathan Blow and Jai. Zig is one of the strong contenders, but Odin is IMO following a saner path, Carbon and D should be mentioned and I think there are a few others. My initial reaction to new programming languages is naturally skeptical, but I really liked the way the designers behind those efforts appr…

I am similarly sceptical, but that's not to say these new languages cannot teach us much. I don't know if Zig or Rust would ever become as popular as C++ -- the odds are certainly stacked against them -- but they both have novel approaches that could, perhaps, introduce some ideas into programming that one day may make an impact.

Re: Zig: A new direction for low-level programming?

#63

Post by dumah »

behnamoh wrote: post #36

C is not going anywhere. Neither are C++, Java, and JS (less sure about TS). One reason is that we've built most of the foundations of modern software already in these languages. New apps pop up all the time but they all rely on ffmpeg, etc. The only way for a new language like Zig to cement itself is to build foundational software that other programs depend on. I don't think even Rust is moving in that direction (lo…

From my perspective, the adoption for Linux kernel modules, prevalence in the ecosystem of data science my industry relies on, and the explosion of great rust CLI tools satisfies this foundation.

Native rust extensions to provide canonical high quality interfaces for other languages, like Valkey Glide are another example.

Adding on the fact that rust is the fastest or nearly the fastest growing language in terms of users, and I can’t agree with the view that it is not moving in that direction.

Re: Zig: A new direction for low-level programming?

#64

Post by jmull »

The author hand waves away ReleaseSafe, but does not really seem to understand its usage.

I don't think zig best-practices are written in stone yet, but I would expect ReleaseSafe to be the default in production. Since zig allows turning off/on safety checks on a per-block basis, you only need to pay as much of a performance cost as you want for this.

Actually, this doesn't really come across as a sincere critique of zig. It's more like how a sport fan talks about a rival team (I guess the author must be team Odin). The "first impressions" section is silly.. of course you don't understand how it all works before you've learned anything about it. It might be a bit confusing and have some new patterns. And yes, all the options of the advanced build system is complex, but... you can use the simple build mechanism, or just go with the template for that matter.

Myself, I think there are certainly valid criticisms of zig to make and I don't know if it's ultimately going to amount to something, but you've got to have some knowledge of the subject and not come at it with a predetermined conclusion.

Re: Zig: A new direction for low-level programming?

#67

Post by charlie-83 »

Its always interesting to me that other people have such an issue with languages being verbose. I have never really understood why people feel this way. It's just a bit of extra typing. I also think it generally increases code readability. Anyone who dislikes verbose languages care to explain their perspective to me?

Re: Zig: A new direction for low-level programming?

#68

Post by jeberle »

behnamoh wrote: post #36

C is not going anywhere. Neither are C++, Java, and JS (less sure about TS). One reason is that we've built most of the foundations of modern software already in these languages. New apps pop up all the time but they all rely on ffmpeg, etc. The only way for a new language like Zig to cement itself is to build foundational software that other programs depend on. I don't think even Rust is moving in that direction (lo…

Ubuntu's move to uutils suggests Rust is not going anywhere.

Re: Zig: A new direction for low-level programming?

#69

Post by techjamie »

lvass wrote: post #41
Icathian wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the exact same attitude as people who threw tantrums about seatbelt laws in the 90s. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. For mostly the same reasons.

Seatbelt laws are still wrong, government has no business protecting me from myself. But even from an utilitarian perspective, compilers do have warnings and they could just have used that.

Keeping with the analogy, yes, you should always wear your seatbelt on public roads (release), but that doesn't mean I feel like I need to buckle up just to move my car while staying in my own driveway (debug).

Re: Zig: A new direction for low-level programming?

#70

Post by dmit »

jmull wrote: post #64

The author hand waves away ReleaseSafe, but does not really seem to understand its usage. I don't think zig best-practices are written in stone yet, but I would expect ReleaseSafe to be the default in production. Since zig allows turning off/on safety checks on a per-block basis, you only need to pay as much of a performance cost as you want for this. Actually, this doesn't really come across as a sincere critique of…

> I don't think zig best-practices are written in stone yet, but I would expect ReleaseSafe to be the default in production.

Which profile is the default for the Zig compiler itself? What about Bun? TigerBeetle was the only one of the three to use ReleaseSafe by default last I checked? (Edit: in fact, they outright ban ReleaseFast and ReleaseSmall because they care about correctness.) ZLS suggests ReleaseSafe in its README too, if you count it among the prominent Zig projects.

Post reply on HN