Odin: Moving Towards a New "core:OS"
odin-lang.org
Odin: Moving Towards a New "core:OS"
1–10 of 102 posts
Re: Odin: Moving Towards a New "core:OS"
#2Odin claims to be pragmatic (what language doesn't lol) but "All procedures that returned allocated memory will require an explicit allocator to be passed". Charitably, is this aimed at c/zig heads?
Re: Odin: Moving Towards a New "core:OS"
#3Odin claims to be pragmatic (what language doesn't lol) but "All procedures that returned allocated memory will require an explicit allocator to be passed". Charitably, is this aimed at c/zig heads?
I'm guessing it's aimed at game development since Vulkan has a similar pattern in every function call (although optional, the driver does it's own allocation if you pass null).
Re: Odin: Moving Towards a New "core:OS"
#4I've been actively toying with Odin in past few days. As a Gopher, the syntax is partially familiar. But as it is a lower level language wiht manual-ish memory management, simple things require much more code to write and a ton of typecasting. Lack of any kind of OOP-ism, like inheritance(bad), encapsulation(ok), or methods(nobrainer), is very spartan and unpleasant in 2025, but that's just a personal preference. I don't think I ever used fully procedural language in my entire life. It requires a complete rewiring on one's brain. Which I'd say is a huge obstacle for most programmers, definitely from the younger crowd. For low-level guys, this is quite a nice and powerful tool. For everyone else, it's a bit of a head ache(even Zig has methods and interfaces). The language still lacks basic things like SQL drivers, solid HTTPS stack, websockets, and essentially anything related to web and networking(which has the bare bones functionality). As a Gopher, I am biased, but the web rules the world, so it is objective complaint. In the end, this is a solid language with great support for 2D and 3D graphics and advanced mathematics, which naturally makes it a very niche language for making games or anything to do with visual programming. Definitely try it out.
PS: I just read a funny comment on YT video: "Odin feels like a DSL for writing games masquerading as a systems language."
Re: Odin: Moving Towards a New "core:OS"
#5I like Odin and hope for it to gain more momentum.
I have an important metric for new "systems" languages: does the language allow NULL for it's commonly used pointer type. Rust by default does not (References may _not_ be NULL). Here is where I think Odin makes a mistake.
In the linked blog post Odin mentions ^os.File which means pointer to File (somewhat like *FILE in C). Theoretically the pointer can be NULL. In practice, maybe I would need to check for NULL or maybe I would not (I would have to scan the Odin function's documentation to see what the contract is).
In Rust, if a function returns &File or &mut File or Box etc. I know that it will never be NULL.
So Odin repeats the famous "billion-dollar mistake" (Tony Hoare). Zig in comparison is bit more fussy about NULL in pointers so it wins my vote.
Currently this is my biggest complaint about Odin. While Odin packages a lot of power programming idioms (and feels a bit higher level and ergonomic than Zig) it makes the same mistake that Golang, C and others make regarding allowing NULL in the default pointer type.
Re: Odin: Moving Towards a New "core:OS"
#6I've been actively toying with Odin in past few days. As a Gopher, the syntax is partially familiar. But as it is a lower level language wiht manual-ish memory management, simple things require much more code to write and a ton of typecasting. Lack of any kind of OOP-ism, like inheritance(bad), encapsulation(ok), or methods(nobrainer), is very spartan and unpleasant in 2025, but that's just a personal preference. I d…
> even Zig has methods and interfaces
Zig doesn't have interfaces as a language level feature. It uses manually implemented vtables and wrapper methods.
You can do the same in Odin with wrapper functions around a vtable.
Re: Odin: Moving Towards a New "core:OS"
#7Odin claims to be pragmatic (what language doesn't lol) but "All procedures that returned allocated memory will require an explicit allocator to be passed". Charitably, is this aimed at c/zig heads?
> All procedures that returned allocated memory will require an explicit allocator to be passed
All procedures in core/os. Odin isn't removing the allocator from implicit context in the rest of its APIs.
Re: Odin: Moving Towards a New "core:OS"
#8Odin claims to be pragmatic (what language doesn't lol) but "All procedures that returned allocated memory will require an explicit allocator to be passed". Charitably, is this aimed at c/zig heads?
All you've got to do is write `context.allocator` to abide.
Re: Odin: Moving Towards a New "core:OS"
#9I've been actively toying with Odin in past few days. As a Gopher, the syntax is partially familiar. But as it is a lower level language wiht manual-ish memory management, simple things require much more code to write and a ton of typecasting. Lack of any kind of OOP-ism, like inheritance(bad), encapsulation(ok), or methods(nobrainer), is very spartan and unpleasant in 2025, but that's just a personal preference. I d…
> even Zig has methods and interfaces Zig doesn't have interfaces as a language level feature. It uses manually implemented vtables and wrapper methods. You can do the same in Odin with wrapper functions around a vtable.
There's even syntax-sugar for it in Odin with the `->` operator.
Re: Odin: Moving Towards a New "core:OS"
#10I like Odin and hope for it to gain more momentum. I have an important metric for new "systems" languages: does the language allow NULL for it's commonly used pointer type. Rust by default does not (References may _not_ be NULL). Here is where I think Odin makes a mistake. In the linked blog post Odin mentions ^os.File which means pointer to File (somewhat like *FILE in C). Theoretically the pointer can be NULL. In p…
Odin offers a Maybe(T) type which might satisfy your itch. It's sort of a compromise. Odin uses multiple-returns with a boolean "ok" value for binary failure-detection. There is actually quite a lot of syntax support for these "optional-ok" situations in Odin, and that's plenty for me. I appreciate the simplicity of handling these things as plain values. I see an argument for moving some of this into the type-system (using Maybe) when it comes to package/API boundaries, but in practice I haven't chosen to use it in Odin.