3 ms·
More than that, people don't understand 'right tool for the job'. For not-so-reliability-critical pieces of software, eg game related, zig might be easier to g
by higerordermap 6y ago
More than that, people don't understand 'right tool for the job'.
For not-so-reliability-critical pieces of software, eg game related, zig might be easier to get it done. Some people are really passionate about rust and very talented, they aren't affected by rust's non-zero cognitive overhead. But us trivial 1x programmers are.
- pron 6y agoEven for the most safety-critical software Zig might be easier to get it done. Or maybe not -- nobody knows. As someone who once worked on safety-critical software, the system could kill people if a computation took too long or gave a wrong answer exactly as much as due to undefined behaviour. Is it better to eliminate undefined behaviour at the cost of making other kinds of testing more difficult? Hard to say. Rust's approach is based on one guess re correctness, Zig's on another. My personal guess is that Zig's approach is ultimately more effective at reaching correctness, but I could be wrong. There's no way to know which is better by thinking about it -- correctness is just too complex a subject.
- dnautics 6y agoReadabity is also critical for correctness in human systems. If you get lost and expend too much mental energy fighting the borrow checker, you might miss other errors. You might get overconfident that your code is checked and miss a logic bug by not covering a case in your unit tests. You are writing unit tests, right?