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

281–290 of 426 posts

Re: Open-source Zig book

#281

Post by rudedogg »

I submitted this and unfortunately it is likely AI generated. The authors github history suggests it at the very least, along with seemingly misunderstanding a reference to a Zig language feature (labeled blocks - https://zig.guide/language-basics/labelled-blocks/) in the project issues (https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/issues/4).

I’m not sure how much value is to be had here, and it’s unfortunate the author wasn’t honest about how it was created.

I wish I wouldn’t have submitted this so quickly but I was excited about the new resource and the chapters I dug into looked good and accurate.

I worry about whether this will be maintained, if there are hallucinations, and if it’s worth investing time into.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#282

Post by dns_snek »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #267
sgt wrote: post #257

Earlier 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…

It's not that simple though, Zig has equivalent spatial memory safety which prevents issues that are pretty consistently among (or at) the top of the list for most dangerous vulnerability classes.

And while I don't have enough experience with Rust to claim this first hand, my understanding is that writing correct unsafe Rust code is at least an order of magnitude harder than writing correct Zig code due to all of the properties/invariants that you have to preserve. So it comes with serious drawbacks, it's not just a quick "opt out of the safety for a bit" switch.

> Being able to guarantee that something can't happen is more valuable than making it simple to do something correctly most of the time.

Of course, all other things being equal, but they're not.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#283

Post by blt »

the-anarchist wrote: post #31
jasonjmcghee wrote: post #2

So despite this... > The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices. I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM. Can the author... Convince me otherwise? > This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a dif…

Doesn't mean that the author might not use AI to optimise legibility. You can write stuff yourself and use an LLM to enhance the reading flow. Especially for non-native speakers it is immensely helpful to do so. Doesn't mean that the content is "AI-generated". The essence is still written by a human.

Clarity in writing comes mostly from the logical structure of ideas presented. Writing can have grammar/style errors but still be clear. If the structure is bad after translation, then it was bad before translation too.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#284

Post by pjmlp »

simonask wrote: post #232
obviouslynotme wrote: post #210

Earlier 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.

Kind of, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_(programming_language)

What it has achieved is making affine types something mainstream developers would care about.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#285

Post by latexr »

fuzzy_biscuit wrote: post #38
gamegoblin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pangram.com, the most accurate and lowest false positive AI detector https://www.pangram.com/blog/third-party-pangram-evals

Why does this feel like an ad? I've seen pangram mentioned a few times now, always with that tagline. It feels like a marketing department skulking around comments.

> Why does this feel like an ad?

Because it’s written like a tagline instead of like a sentence people would say to each other.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#286

Post by benji-york »

miki123211 wrote: post #218
userbinator wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who actually want to learn languages which are "fundamentally changing how you think about software", I'd recommend the Lisp family and APL family.

Am I correct that you can essentially "learn APL without learning APL" by just learning Numpy / Pytorch? I looked at array languages briefly, and my impression was that"ooh this is just Numpy but weirder."

You might enjoy this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xAKttWgP4

Re: Open-source Zig book

#287

Post by bayindirh »

throw9404049 wrote: post #278
hnarn wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In the "other good news department", GCC is adding a Rust frontend to provide the alternative implementation, and I believe Rust guys accepted to write a specification for the language.

I'm waiting for gccrs to start using the language, actually.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#288

Post by [deleted] »

assbuttbuttass wrote: post #190
Brian_K_White wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right in those same first few paragraphs... "...hiding something from you. Because they are." Would most LLMs have written that invalid fragment sentence "Because they are." ? I don't think you have enough to go on to make this accusation.

Yes, that fragment in particular screams LLM to me. It's the exact kind of meaningless yet overly dramatic slop that LLMs love

[deleted]

Re: Open-source Zig book

#289

Post by pjmlp »

sgt wrote: post #268
JuniperMesos wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If we ignore recent movents in govermental cybersecurity agencies, and big tech to move away from unsafe programming languages, as much as technically possible.

Introducing a language with the same safety as Modula-2 or Object Pascal, would make sense in the 1990's, nowadays with improved type systems making the transition from academia into mainstream, we (the industry) know better.

It is not only Rust, it is Linear Haskell, OCaml effects, Swift 6 ownership model, Ada/SPARK, Chapel,....

Re: Open-source Zig book

#290

Post by pjmlp »

brabel wrote: post #262
hu3 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

Cyclone for one, which AT&T created exactly to replace C.
Post reply on HN