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

Open-source Zig book

zigbook.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 426 posts

Re: Open-source Zig book

#271

Post by bayindirh »

rjzzleep wrote: post #237
simonask wrote: post #232

Earlier 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…

> To call Rust syntax beautiful is a stretch.

I'm no Rust fan, but beauty of a syntax is always in the eye of the beholder.

I personally find Go, C++ and Python's syntax beautiful. All can be written in very explicit or expressive forms. On the other hand, you can hide complexity to a point.

If you are going to do complex things in a compact space, you'll asymptotically approach Perl or PCRE. It's maths.

All code is maths, BTW.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#272

Post by latexr »

rjzzleep wrote: post #237
simonask wrote: post #232

Earlier 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…

> To call Rust syntax beautiful is a stretch.

I don’t see where the comment you’re replying to does that (was it edited?). Their comment says nothing about aesthetics.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#273

Post by smakt »

Haha the fucking garbage. Before AI, before the internet, this overexaggerated, hokey prose was written by scummy humans and it came exclusively in porn magazines along with the x-ray specs and sea-monkey fishtanks.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#274

Post by bargainbin »

> No hidden control flow: Zig has no hidden allocators, goroutines…

Neither of those things are control flow, and yet again I’m reading a pro-Zig text taking a dig at Go without any substance to the criticism.

Also funny having a dig at goroutines when Zig is all over the place with its async implementation.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#275

Post by pelasaco »

tamnd wrote: post #263
pelasaco wrote: post #249

I'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…

> For my personal usage, I'm working on replacing Docker builds for some Go projects that rely heavily on CGO by using `zig cc`. I'm not using the Zig language itself, but this could be considered one of its use cases.

Hm, i can see a good use case when we want to have reproducible builds from go packages, including its C extensions. Is that your use case, or are you aiming for multi-environment support of your compiled "CGO extensions"

Re: Open-source Zig book

#276

Post by virajk_31 »

tamnd wrote: post #266
virajk_31 wrote: post #259

Folks! 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").

Is this sarcasm? if yes I got your joke otherwise please enlighten me _/\_

Re: Open-source Zig book

#277

Post by vad1d3v »

I don't know any of you. But Zig has opened way big door for system programming for people like me who has never done that before. And, Zig code looks (for a guy comes from curly braces language) easier to understand with really small learning curve.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#278

Post by throw9404049 »

hnarn wrote: post #242
rjzzleep wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> they know that if other languages that address one of the main rust claims without all the cruft gains popularity they lose the chance of being permanently embdedded in places like the kernel First of all, I'm really opposed to saying "the kernel". I am sure you're talking about the Linux kernel, but there are other kernels (BSD, Windows etc.) that are certainly big enough to not call it "the" kernel, and that may…

> Rust at this point is 10 years old from stable

Rust is not stable even today! There is no spec, no alternative implementations, no test suite... "Stable" is what "current compiler compiles"! Existing code may stop compiling any day....

Maybe in 10 years it may become stable, like other "booring" languages (Golang and Java).

Rust stability is why Linus opposes its integration into kernel.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#280

Post by keybored »

wavemode wrote: post #202
poly2it wrote: post #195

> Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software. I'm not sure what they expect, but to me Zig looks very much like C with a modern standard lib and slightly different syntax. This isn't groundbreaking, not a thought paradigm which should be that novel to most system engineers like for example OCaml could be. Stuff like this alienates p…

Much of the book's copy appears to have been written by AI (despite the foreword statement that none of it was), which explains the hokey overenthusiasm and exaggerations.

As we know AI is at least as smart as the average human. It knows the Zeitgeist and thus adds “No AI used” in order to boost “credibility”. :) (“credibility” since AI is at least as smart the average human, for us in the know.)
Post reply on HN