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

321–330 of 426 posts

Re: Open-source Zig book

#321

Post by brabel »

pjmlp wrote: post #290
brabel wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah but is that a practical language people can use instead of C and Rust? I’ve always heard of it only as a research language that inspired rust but nothing else.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#322

Post by toinewx »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #319
toinewx wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. There is no evidence this is AI generated. The author claims it wasn't, and on the specific issue you cite, he explains why he's struggling with understanding it, even if the answer is "obvious" to most people here. There is, actually, You may copy the introduction to Pangram and it will say 100% AI generated.

That's not evidence, at least not evidence that would stand up to a peer review if the author were to refute it.

When I give my own writings to Pangram, it says 100% human.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#323

Post by 59nadir »

zwnow wrote: post #305
59nadir wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to include Elixir here; none of the important bits that will change how you view software come from Elixir, it's just a skin on top of Erlang (+ some standard library wrappers) and that's it.

I'd argue more people use Elixir over Erlang at this point. Sure its just an abstraction on top of Erlang, but people learn through Elixir nowadays, not through Erlang.

If you want to learn the actual mind changing aspects of the BEAM, clearly learning the simpler, smaller language with a more direct route to the juice is the way to go. Hence Erlang, not Elixir. I learned Elixir first back in 2015, and then learned Erlang, and have had the pleasure of using both in production. When all was said and done I really think Erlang was better, especially over a long enough time frame.

As a general point I'd like to state that I don't think it really matters what "people" do when you're learning for yourself. In the grand scheme of things approximately no one uses the BEAM, but this doesn't mean that learning how to use it is somehow pointless.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#324

Post by pjmlp »

Ygg2 wrote: post #314
pjmlp wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_(programming_language) What it has achieved is making affine types something mainstream developers would care about.

That kind of is a bit load bearing. The differences are pretty huge. Plus, borrow checker is nowhere to be found. Cyclone is more C with a few tweaks (tagged unions, generics, regions, etc.).

Borrow checking is basically a synonym for affine type system.

The same outcome can be achieved via affine types, linear types, effects, dependent types, regions, proofs, among many other CS research in type systems.

Which is why following Rust's success, plenty of managed languages are now going through the evolution step to combine automatic resource management with improved type systems.

Taking the one that best approaches their current design.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#325

Post by virajk_31 »

WA wrote: post #295
tamnd wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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").

So, a new JS linter written in Zig, when?

is it even required?

Re: Open-source Zig book

#326

Post by zwnow »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #309
rudedogg wrote: post #281

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 was…

I'd love it if we can stop the "Oh, this might be AI, so it's probably crap" thing that has taken over HN recently. 1. There is no evidence this is AI generated. The author claims it wasn't, and on the specific issue you cite, he explains why he's struggling with understanding it, even if the answer is "obvious" to most people here. 2. Even if it were AI generated, that does not automatically make it worthless. In fa…

> 2. Even if it were AI generated, that does not automatically make it worthless.

It does make it automatically worthless if the author claims it's hand made. How am I supposed to trust this author if they just lie about things upfront? What worth does learning material have if it's written by a liar? How can I be sure the author isn't just lying with lots of information throughout the book?

Re: Open-source Zig book

#327

Post by tpoacher »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #319
toinewx wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. There is no evidence this is AI generated. The author claims it wasn't, and on the specific issue you cite, he explains why he's struggling with understanding it, even if the answer is "obvious" to most people here. There is, actually, You may copy the introduction to Pangram and it will say 100% AI generated.

That's not evidence, at least not evidence that would stand up to a peer review if the author were to refute it.

It's not proof but it's definitely evidence.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#328

Post by spacechild1 »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #318
cryptocod3 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if there are hallucinations Plenty. I assumed that the code examples had been cleaned up manually, so instead I looked at a few random "Caveats, alternatives, edge cases" sections. These contain errors typically made by LLMs, such as suggesting to use features that doesn't exist (std.mem.terminated), are non-public (argvToScriptCommandLineWindows) or removed (std.BoundedArray). These sections also surfaces irreleva…

This looks like more data towards the "LLMs were involved" side of the argument, but as my other comment pointed out, that might not be an issue. We're used to errata and fixing up stuff produced by humans, so if we can fix this resource, it might actually be valuable and more useful than anything that existed before it. Maybe. One of my things with AI is that if we assume it is there to replace humans, we are always…

> and yes the author should have been more upfront about it

They should not have lied about. That's not someone I would want to trust and support. There's probably a good reason why they decided to stay anonymous.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#329

Post by spacechild1 »

bool3max wrote: post #313
rudedogg wrote: post #281

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 was…

We really are in the trenches. How is this garbage #1 on the front page of *HN* right now? Even if it was totally legitimate, the "landing page" (its design) and the headline ("Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software."?????) should discredit it immediately.

Yes, this should immediately set off all BS alarms.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#330

Post by necklesspen »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #318
cryptocod3 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if there are hallucinations Plenty. I assumed that the code examples had been cleaned up manually, so instead I looked at a few random "Caveats, alternatives, edge cases" sections. These contain errors typically made by LLMs, such as suggesting to use features that doesn't exist (std.mem.terminated), are non-public (argvToScriptCommandLineWindows) or removed (std.BoundedArray). These sections also surfaces irreleva…

This looks like more data towards the "LLMs were involved" side of the argument, but as my other comment pointed out, that might not be an issue. We're used to errata and fixing up stuff produced by humans, so if we can fix this resource, it might actually be valuable and more useful than anything that existed before it. Maybe. One of my things with AI is that if we assume it is there to replace humans, we are always…

There's a difference between the author being more upfront about it and straight-up lying on multiple locations that zero AI is involved. It's stated on the landing page, documentation and GitHub - and there might be more locations I havent' seen.

Personally, I would want no involvement in a project where the maintainer is this manipulative and I would find it a tragedy if any people contributed to their project.

Post reply on HN