5 ms·
> "linear affine types" It's "linear/affine types," not "linear affine types". Also: Zig doesn't have linear or affine types. You seem to be quite confused ab
by vmchale 8y ago
> "linear affine types"
It's "linear/affine types," not "linear affine types".
Also: Zig doesn't have linear or affine types. You seem to be quite confused about PL theory, which frankly does not make me any more confident in the language.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 8y agoA little over the top with this criticism? Or, the other one: lack of affine/linear types is "inexcusable", really? As if these are so mainstream that any new language should have them? It's a new language, still in development, use it or not. Zig doesn't want to be a dumpster for trendy PL concepts. It has been designed to be a safer and friendlier C, not a simpler Haskell or Agda.
- floatboth 8y ago> given the current offering Current offering being of course Rust. Rust isn't a "simpler Agda" either. It is a safer C/C++ – as in bare metal capable, no GC, natively compiled… and affine types is what makes the safety possible.
- vmchale 8y ago> Rust isn't a "simpler Agda" either. Calling Rust a "simpler Agda" is a bit insane. Rust simply has a sensible, current type system. Agda is full dependent types.
- vmchale 8y ago> Zig doesn't want to be a dumpster for trendy PL concepts. It has been designed to be a safer and friendlier C Exactly why the project is pointless. It doesn't offer enough beyond C for there to exist any incentive to switch. I would add that affine types are not simply a "trendy PL concept" given that Rust has used them to great effect.