4 ms·
Great article! I'm impressed by the constant praises of Zigs thoughtful ascetic feature design. That said, 1. Just seems like the same lack-of-feature/"simple
by eximius 6y ago
Great article! I'm impressed by the constant praises of Zigs thoughtful ascetic feature design.
That said,
1. Just seems like the same lack-of-feature/"simple" stockholm syndrome from Go. To each their own.
2. It would seem that the author could take the structure of their Zig application and almost directly port it back to Rust (e.g., their conditional compilation problems go away if you do it at a high enough level)
`inline for` is pretty special, though. I bet.... now someone has written a published macro for it.
- loup-vaillant 6y ago> 1. Just seems like the same lack-of-feature/"simple" stockholm syndrome from Go. I don't think I'd say "lol no generics" to Zig… Though I'd have to try to really see whether I'm missing anything (and I think I'd notice pretty quick, with my love for OCaml). There's a chance I'd miss closures.
- geodel 6y ago> It would seem that the author could take the structure of their Zig application and almost directly port it back to Rust Yup, and this phenomenon has a popular name called 'Rewrite it in Rust' Not sure though, that it has a positive connotation. > Just seems like the same lack-of-feature/"simple" stockholm syndrome from Go. To each their own. Huh, I'd say another Rust fanboy obsessed with feature list than working software. You would call it a fair take, right?
- eximius 6y agoI'll respond in good faith, but your tone sounds like you're just low-key dissing me. He originally wrote it in Rust and solved some of his problems when he rewrote it in Zig in a different architecture. The same architecture in Rust would have solved the same problems. And no, I would not call your second paragraph a fair take.
- p0nce 6y ago> `inline for` is pretty special Again: `inline for` has been in D for more than 10 years.
- renox 6y agoYep but DasBetterC isn't ten year old..