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

Zig: Build System Reworked

ziglang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 263 posts

Re: Zig: Build System Reworked

#71

Post by tatjam »

archargelod wrote: post #60
dmit wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever thought "Ugh, this bit of Python code is running much slower than I expected on my computer. Wonder if anyone has written a native library for this"? That's probably the closest use case for someone who matches your description -- a language that is much more ergonomic, much more 'modern' feeling (in all the good ways), while still extremely compatible with C. As for the language itself, it's going to b…

That's actually a great argument for Nim[0]. Easy interop with C, native-speed performance, and a syntax very close to Python in both readability and how quickly you can get something working. Batteries included, automatic memory management without a conventional GC and metaprogramming - is a really cool combination. [0] - https://nim-lang.org/

Aggh if only its LSP was better! I have always run into issues when using Helix with it (it kept crashing), and I'm absolutely spoiled by good LSPs in other languages :(

Wish I had the time and skill to actually contribute to the LSP, if you have ever used Nim it's a seriously underrated language.

Re: Zig: Build System Reworked

#72

Post by archargelod »

pjmlp wrote: post #31
andyferris wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Basically what the world has lost by ignoring Modula-2 and Object Pascal, and going down the C path.

The spirit of Pascal lives on in Nim.

It's arguably the closest modern language (with a sizeable community) to the Wirthian languages.

Re: Zig: Build System Reworked

#73

Post by xyzsparetimexyz »

0x696C6961 wrote: post #34
asibahi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s definitely a great tinkering language but .. eh .. the Zig team and community are extremely opinionated about how to use the language correctly.

This has not been my experience.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Zig/comments/onzsfl/illegal_tabs/

Re: Zig: Build System Reworked

#74

Post by Weebs »

galangalalgol wrote: post #66
xyzsparetimexyz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But nothing gets in your face how to use the programming language "correctly". It doesnt let you have unused variables and theres no multiline comment support. These are fairly significant productivity issues for me

What do you like to ise those features for?

Not the person you replied to but I leave unused variables as future TODOs. It's a warning in F#. I also often use them for inspecting data in the debugger

Re: Zig: Build System Reworked

#75

Post by bbkane »

ulbu wrote: post #42
brabel wrote: post #24

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 “(super) efficient” is not there yet. Io is still dynamic dispatch with multiple layers of indirection. afaik it’s slower than before. 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.

Hmm in the 2025 talk ( https://youtu.be/f30PceqQWko?si=qZESxMaSyt7fYMfz ), Andrew emphasizes that this approach is more efficient than before- even showing compiled assembly iirc. I guess that was a one-off?

Re: Zig: Build System Reworked

#76

Post by afirmativ »

xyzsparetimexyz wrote: post #61
portly wrote: post #8

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.

> But nothing gets in your face how to use the programming language "correctly". It doesnt let you have unused variables and theres no multiline comment support. These are fairly significant productivity issues for me

I agree - can't create and toggle between rough code sketches of functions in a source file without these features. It's more than annoying.

Re: Zig: Build System Reworked

#77

Post by galangalalgol »

jgalt212 wrote: post #68
ulbu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bun seems to be committed to slop rust already. so, with their ethic, maybe we should just disassociate them from zig and let them go realize their slop dreams? 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?

I bet they'll ultimately reverse course on this, or the there will be a bun / zig fork becomes the de facto bun. Despite what the influencers say, I'm convinced you cannot vibe code a conversion this big. It will need a ton of human intervention. And for brand narrative reasons, Anthropic won't commit to such a path.

It depends on how thorough the test infrastructure is I think. Something like curl with its immaculate tests could probably get autonomously ported if you threw infinite tokens at it because you have deterministically defined what finished looks like. But I think you are likely right in this case.

Re: Zig: Build System Reworked

#78

Post by bbkane »

pjmlp wrote: post #32
epolanski wrote: post #5

This sounds like great news, Zig's compilation times are already terrific and this is going to only make them better.

Yes, compilation speeds of the 90's are slowly making a return, thankfully.

I thank Go for this. Go's compilation times seemed to inspire other language devs

Re: Zig: Build System Reworked

#79

Post by afirmativ »

brabel wrote: post #24

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…

Maybe one day it'd be possible to use these new features, but I find myself using `.use_llvm = true` in my zig builds for stability and lesser tested targets.

Re: Zig: Build System Reworked

#80

Post by galangalalgol »

xyzsparetimexyz wrote: post #69
galangalalgol wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you like to ise those features for?

In rust, having unused variables as a warning (but not an error) let's you refactor code, test it and see what is now unused as a result. You can then remove the unused items. Zig requires you to remove the unused items (e.g. with '_ = ...;' which is then something you might forget about) before testing, increasing friction. Multiline comments are less important, but its still convenient for commenting out large chun…

Thanks, there is always a risk of people jumping on replies like that to scream that you are doing it wrong. I just wanted to see how other people do stuff. Hope everyone stays nice.
Post reply on HN