Using Next.js and Tailwind-bloat feels contradictory to Zig.
Open-source Zig book
261–270 of 426 posts
Re: Open-source Zig book
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know man, Rust's borrowing semantics are pretty new under the sun, and actually do change the way you think about software. It's a pretty momentous paradigm shift. Zig is nice too, but it's not that.
There were languages with lifetimes and borrowing mechanics before Rust. Rust packages these mechanics in a nice way. Just like Zig encodes many niceties in a useful C language (comptime, simple cross-compilation, stdlib).
Which ones?? Before Rust, to my knowledge, no language had an actually practical way to use lifetimes and borrow-checking so that both memory safety and concurrency safety (data races, which is huge) were solved, even though the concepts were known in research. Doing the actual work to make it practical is what makes the difference between some obscure research topic and a widely used language that actually solves serious problems in the real world.
Re: Open-source Zig book
#263I'm a C/C++ developer. I write production code in MQL5 (C-like) and Go, and I use Python for research and Automation. I can work with other languages as well, but I keep asking myself: why should I learn Zig? If I want to do system or network programming, my current stack already covers those needs — and adding Rust would probably make it even more future-proof. But Zig? This is a genuine question, because the "Zig b…
If you're doing it for real-world values, keep doing that. But if you want traction, writing in a "fancy" language is almost a requirement. "A database engine written in Zig" or "A search engine written in Zig" sounds much flashier and guarantees attention. Look at this book: it is defintely an AI slop, but it stays at the top spot, and there's barely any discussion about the language itself.
Enough rant, now back on some reasons for why choosing Zig:
- Cross platform tools with tiny binaries (Zig's built in cross compilation avoids the complex setup needed with C)
- System utilities or daemons (explicit error handling instead of silent patterns common in C)
- Embedded or bare metal work (predictable rules and fewer footguns than raw C)
- Interfacing with existing C libraries (direct header import without manual binding code)
- Build and deployment tooling (single build system that replaces Make and extra scripts)
Re: Open-source Zig book
#264Folks! do I really need learn Zig? I am already good with Rust!!
Bar C if you're into system's programming there's no language you *need* to learn.
Partially agree on this, std lib/crates and ease of use do make a difference (this is not even the main reason to use Rust), though Rust certainly has its own headaches. (Imagine searching for someone's implementation of HashedMap on github or using dedicated packages like glib, when you get it easily at crates.io). Again this is subjective based on use cases.
Re: Open-source Zig book
#265For me, personally, any new language needs to have a "why." If a new language can't convince me in 1-2 sentences why I need to learn it and how it's going to improve software development, as a whole, it's 99% bs and not worth my time. DHH does a great job of clarifying this during his podcast with Lex Friedman. The "why" is immediately clear and one can decide for themselves if it's what they're looking for. I have n…
For many languages I agree, especially languages with steep learning curves (e.g. Rust, Haskell). But zig is dead fast to learn so I'd recommend just nipping through Ziglings and seeing if its a language you want to add to the toolbox. It took me only about 10 hours to pick up and get used to and it has immediately replaced C and C++ in my personal projects. It's really just a safer, more ergonomic C. If you already love C, I maybe wouldn't bother.
Re: Open-source Zig book
#266Folks! do I really need learn Zig? I am already good with Rust!!
Yeah, you should. Zig is a trending language right now, and in the coming years many projects are likely to be rewritten in Zig instead of Rust (often referred to as "riiz").
Re: Open-source Zig book
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if other languages that address one of the main rust claims without all the cruft But regardless of how much one likes Zig, it addresses none of the problems that Rust seeks to solve. It's not a replacement for Rust at all, and isn't suitable for any of the domains where Rust excels.
> and isn't suitable for any of the domains where Rust excels. That's a pretty bold claim since Zig is specifically designed for systems programming, low level stuff, network services, databases (think Tigerbeetle). It's not memory safe like Rust is, but it comes with constructs that make it simple to build largely memory safe programs.
> It's not memory safe like Rust is, but it comes with constructs that make it simple to build largely memory safe programs.
Right, this is the specific important thing that Rust does that Zig doesn't (with the caveat that Rust includes the `unsafe` mechanism - as a marked, non-default option - specifically to allow for necessary low-level memory manipulation that can't be checked for correctness by the compiler). Being able to guarantee that something can't happen is more valuable than making it simple to do something correctly most of the time.
Re: Open-source Zig book
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and isn't suitable for any of the domains where Rust excels. That's a pretty bold claim since Zig is specifically designed for systems programming, low level stuff, network services, databases (think Tigerbeetle). It's not memory safe like Rust is, but it comes with constructs that make it simple to build largely memory safe programs.
> It's not memory safe like Rust is, but it comes with constructs that make it simple to build largely memory safe programs. Right, this is the specific important thing that Rust does that Zig doesn't (with the caveat that Rust includes the `unsafe` mechanism - as a marked, non-default option - specifically to allow for necessary low-level memory manipulation that can't be checked for correctness by the compiler). Be…
Sure but there's this belief in the Rust community that it's not responsible anymore to write software that isn't memory safe on the same level as Rust.
So Zig would fail that, but then you could also consider C++ unsuitable for production software - and we know it clearly is still suitable.
I predict Zig will just become more and more popular (and with better, although not as complete- memory safety), and be applied to mission critical infra.
Re: Open-source Zig book
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing new under the Sun. However, some languages manifest as good rewrites of older languages. Rust is that for C++. Zig is that for C. Rust is the small, beautiful language hiding inside of Modern C++. Ownership isn't new. It's the core tenet of RAII. Rust just pulls it out of the backwards-compatible kitchen sink and builds it into the type system. Rust is worth learning just so that you can fully experi…
I don't know man, Rust's borrowing semantics are pretty new under the sun, and actually do change the way you think about software. It's a pretty momentous paradigm shift. Zig is nice too, but it's not that.
> actually do change the way you think about software. It's a pretty momentous paradigm shift.
That's true for people who doesn't read and think about the code they write. For people who think from the perspective of a computer, Rust is "same checks, but forced by the compiler".
Make no mistake, to err is human, but Rust doesn't excite me that much.
Re: Open-source Zig book
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know man, Rust's borrowing semantics are pretty new under the sun, and actually do change the way you think about software. It's a pretty momentous paradigm shift. Zig is nice too, but it's not that.
To call Rust syntax beautiful is a stretch. It seems that way in the beginning but then quickly devolves into a monstrosity when you start doing more complex things. Zig on the other specifically addresses syntax shortcomings in part of C. And it does it well. That claim of rust making C more safe because it’s more readable applies to Zig more than it does to Rust. I feel like the reason the rust zealots lobby like c…
For my part, I don't know why, but Zig's syntax feels wrong to me. I don't even know why. I really want to like its syntax, as Zig seems really promising to me, but I just don't, which makes it not very enjoyable for me to write.
I don't know if it's my lack of practice, but I never felt the same about, say, Rust's syntax, or the syntax of any other language for that matter.