Zig Zen Update
codeberg.org
Zig Zen Update
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Zig Zen Update
#2Re: Zig Zen Update
#3Re: Zig Zen Update
#4I'm out of the loop. Is there any context? Can't pick up on what really changed here.
Re: Zig Zen Update
#5Glad to see "Together we serve the users" come back. I miss the old Zig readme that said Zig comes with an MIT license and a humble request to build software that serves the users.
Re: Zig Zen Update
#6I always felt that Python's "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." was a bit of a mess.
Obviously (to anyone who was around at the time), that plank was written in response to Perl's motto: "There is more than one way to do it."
Zig's original take on this, "Only one obvious way to do things" seems even worse. You see, both languages agree that Perl had it wrong: it is unhelpful to have several different ways to write any future. But they went a little too far: it is not actually bad for it to be possible to write the same thing in more than one way.
Zig's new phrasing: "There is an idiomatic way to do it." captures the CORRECT alternative to Perl's motto. It is not important that there be no alternative ways of writing something, Rather, it is important that there be a single idiomatic way to write it.
Re: Zig Zen Update
#7Re: Zig Zen Update
#8Nicely done! I always felt that Python's "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." was a bit of a mess. Obviously (to anyone who was around at the time), that plank was written in response to Perl's motto: "There is more than one way to do it." Zig's original take on this, "Only one obvious way to do things" seems even worse. You see, both languages agree that Perl had it wrong: it is un…
Also, importantly, the Zen of Python is kinda written as a set of ideas that Python should aspire to ("there should be one obvious way to do it") instead of a sales pitch of Python's merits. I prefer that.
Re: Zig Zen Update
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The link shows the exact diff
I saw what changed syntactically. I meant I don't really understand what changed semantically. And whether there is any context to why the change was necessary.
> - rewordings
> - "memory is a resource" goes without saying
> - emphasize the final point