261–263 of 263 posts
I wanted to try zig, but the language still moves way, way too fast, they break API for every release, so i simply couldbt keep up, while learning the language/debugging the build system/trying to actually implement what i wanted After watching the Jetbrains interview, I still want to try again but maybe i ll wait till the 1.0 is out
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that’s not what the benchmarks say about Go, and based on multiple reports, Rust does not scale well into large codebases, which eventually become brittle and very difficult to change Zig is a return to “no magical effects,” except with reasonable safety
I would be very surprised to see a large Rust codebase being harder to maintain than a large Zig codebase. The former makes it much easier to maintain invariants at scale.
Note that it doesn't matter if the compiler is correct about its claims; if the language doesn't actively discourage patterns that produce this outcome at scale, then the language does not scale, end of story.
The trend is basically either linear or exponential: as more LOC of Rust are added, the greater the percent of total time you spend fighting the compiler to get a successful build, especially in a team context (which is exactly what gets you to >1M LOC). Solo devs can contain the whole design in their minds and may not run into this issue as much; the problem specifically occurs on teams where the mental model MUST be fractured by necessity, and this results in "distributed knowledge of magic" that ends up constantly breaking.
Perhaps this explains WHY there aren't that many Rust projects done by more than 1 developer that approach that many LOC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be very surprised to see a large Rust codebase being harder to maintain than a large Zig codebase. The former makes it much easier to maintain invariants at scale.
With Rust macros it's also possible to bolt on proper design by contract into the language.