41–50 of 263 posts
Bun is moving towards rust but does this also help bun's compilation times? https://ziggit.dev/t/bun-s-zig-fork-got-4x-faster-compilatio...
I just upgraded some code to Zig 0.16.0 and I am actually really happy with the results. It impacted A LOT of things, but the changes were actually very good and seems to have set the language for a bright future, especially with the new IO mechanism which allows supper efficient code that looks good whether it's implemented single-threaded, multi-threaded or just via an event loop! If you haven't tried Zig since 0.1…
the upcoming releases are expected to provide a solution to this “dispatch is comptime-known, but still dynamic” problem, and drop the loses in efficiency.
After having used Zig for a couple of months now I am convinced it is a fantastic tool language. You just pick it up to hack some idea together freely. Every time I hit a wall, I find the creators have thought of it already and offers comfort. But nothing gets in your face how to use the programming language "correctly". For me it is now the go-to "tinker in my garage" language.
Is it really that good? My go-to "tinker in my garage" language is Python - lightweight syntax that stays out of your face, batteries included, packages for everything that's not included. What's Zig's edge?
It requires more of you in some ways, notably that you have to understand the basics of memory management and the behaviour of the stack, but so far I've found the affordances that the language provides for handling this stuff feel very intuitive.
The only sharp edges I've felt so far have been the sometimes hard to guess locations of things in the standard library, and the permenant anxiety that arises from knowing I'm going to be a few more versions behind the current release with every month that passes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I get that, but Zig being low level is kind of why I don't get why it would be a good tinkering language? When I want to tinker, I just want my logic to work, first of all. In 9 cases out of 10 that means going for high level. Even if the resulting code works with low level things like binary structures.
Low-level programming gets a bad name because C has many footguns and the spec leaves much behavior undefined - a fact that implementers use almost adversarially (which I'd support, if the goal was to refine the spec...). C++ adds more high-level conveniences without actually removing the footguns and undefined behavior (much C code compiles in a C++ compiler). Zig tries to keep the low-level C philosophy but have th…
I haven't really used modern C, not sure if it's evolved as much as modern C++, which I feel is a joy to use, and a lot safer. But then I've been writing C++ for decades.
I feel like C evolved from basically syntax sugar for assembly, so that's where all the footguns come from, rather than being actually adversarial.
Bun is moving towards rust but does this also help bun's compilation times? https://ziggit.dev/t/bun-s-zig-fork-got-4x-faster-compilatio...
I think bun is moving to rust because Anthropic owns it and the devs there like rust. So why would they invest in another implementation? Sad to see a good zig example go, but as soon as Anthropic bought it I wrote the project off.
Bun is moving towards rust but does this also help bun's compilation times? https://ziggit.dev/t/bun-s-zig-fork-got-4x-faster-compilatio...
zig is on its way to improving compilation times in its own pace and does so for the benefit of the project and everyone involved, so what is left to care for about bun by anthropic’s past?
After having used Zig for a couple of months now I am convinced it is a fantastic tool language. You just pick it up to hack some idea together freely. Every time I hit a wall, I find the creators have thought of it already and offers comfort. But nothing gets in your face how to use the programming language "correctly". For me it is now the go-to "tinker in my garage" language.