Zig feels more practical than Rust for real-world CLI tools
1–10 of 412 posts
Re: Zig feels more practical than Rust for real-world CLI tools
#2Re: Zig feels more practical than Rust for real-world CLI tools
#3Re: Zig feels more practical than Rust for real-world CLI tools
#4As far as my understanding of zig goes....it can compile into C....so if you really want secure C code you can compile zig into C?
Re: Zig feels more practical than Rust for real-world CLI tools
#5The words of every C programmer who created a CVE.
Re: Zig feels more practical than Rust for real-world CLI tools
#6[flagged]
Re: Zig feels more practical than Rust for real-world CLI tools
#7I feel like I am most interested about nim given how easy it was to pick up and how interoperable it is with C and it has a garbage collector and can change it which seems to be great for someone like me who doesn't want to worry about manual memory management right now but maybe if it becomes a bottleneck later, I can atleast fix it without worrying too much..
Re: Zig feels more practical than Rust for real-world CLI tools
#8I think people prefer what's familiar to them, and Swift definitely looks closer to existing C++ to me, and I believe has multiple people from the C++ WG working on it now as well, supposedly after getting fed up with the lack of language progress on C++.
The most recent versions gained a lot in the way of cross-platform availability, but the lack of a native UI framework and its association with Apple seem to put off a lot of people from even trying it.
I wish it was a lot more popular outside of the Apple ecosystem.
Re: Zig feels more practical than Rust for real-world CLI tools
#9Re: Zig feels more practical than Rust for real-world CLI tools
#10Edits mine.
I like to keep the spacetime topologies complete.
Constant = time atom of value.
Register = time sequence of values.
Stack = time hierarchy of values.
Heap = time graph of values.