3 ms·

Every time I read about Zig, I feel like I see a nice language that's only an incremental improvement to C mostly in terms of ergonomics. It's hard for me to im

Every time I read about Zig, I feel like I see a nice language that's only an incremental improvement to C mostly in terms of ergonomics. It's hard for me to imagine people giving up C for only incremental gain.

defen 5y ago
An alternative perspective is that you don't have to give up C to use Zig - they are extraordinarily easy to mix together in one project. So you can incrementally move an existing project to Zig without rewriting the world.
naasking 5y ago
Compile type computations, trivial cross-platform building and linking, vastly better error handling, and more. Honestly, I'm having a hard time seeing how these are only "incremental" improvements over C.
sharikone 5y ago
You could argue the opposite and say that because it is incremental and easy to mix with C, it will be more easily used. When I program on my own I often write an idea in C and then convert it to C++ when complexity rises, precisely because C++, in terms of syntax, is an incremental update to C. Using say Rust would entail a more serious rewrite. Unfortunately Zig and Rust are quite different in syntax. I would love to change my workflow from C->C++ to Zig->Rust but the transition is not as nice.
flohofwoe 5y ago
I thought that too in the beginning, but the comptime features, type reflection and error handling really go beyond C, while still being a simple and elegant language (in a way even simpler than C). Also Zig is a nicer C/C++/ObjC toolchain than most C/C++ toolchains (because of simple cross-compilation and integrated build system).
hansvm 5y ago
I don't know how many people will switch, but I think it's worth it for even a few of the new features. - You can get cross-compilation for free in Cython projects just by switching compilers. - (nearly) Arbitrary width integer types are a godsend for the right kinds of bit twiddly projects. - The error handling is actually really nice.

defen 5y ago

An alternative perspective is that you don't have to give up C to use Zig - they are extraordinarily easy to mix together in one project. So you can incrementally move an existing project to Zig without rewriting the world.

naasking 5y ago

Compile type computations, trivial cross-platform building and linking, vastly better error handling, and more. Honestly, I'm having a hard time seeing how these are only "incremental" improvements over C.

sharikone 5y ago

You could argue the opposite and say that because it is incremental and easy to mix with C, it will be more easily used. When I program on my own I often write an idea in C and then convert it to C++ when complexity rises, precisely because C++, in terms of syntax, is an incremental update to C. Using say Rust would entail a more serious rewrite. Unfortunately Zig and Rust are quite different in syntax. I would love to change my workflow from C->C++ to Zig->Rust but the transition is not as nice.

flohofwoe 5y ago

I thought that too in the beginning, but the comptime features, type reflection and error handling really go beyond C, while still being a simple and elegant language (in a way even simpler than C). Also Zig is a nicer C/C++/ObjC toolchain than most C/C++ toolchains (because of simple cross-compilation and integrated build system).

hansvm 5y ago

I don't know how many people will switch, but I think it's worth it for even a few of the new features. - You can get cross-compilation for free in Cython projects just by switching compilers. - (nearly) Arbitrary width integer types are a godsend for the right kinds of bit twiddly projects. - The error handling is actually really nice.