4 ms·

Zig is one that’s been on my list for Paul's stated reason.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
meheleventyone 5y ago
Is Zig weird though? I find it eminently pragmatic and a lot of the interest in it comes from people migrating from popular languages like C and C++ (not that C++ isn't itself pretty weird).
- nlitened 5y ago
  From what I’ve seen, Zig has no built-in polymorphism features (no vtables/interfaces/traits), which is _pretty_ weird for a modern language in a good way.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    That is just because it is new. If it survives it will end up with everything.
    - judofyr 5y ago
      “Adding everything” is definitely not a part of Zig’s philosophy. https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/130#issuecomment-706011442 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/130#issuecomment-70601... > However, at this point the plan is to not add an additional dynamic dispatch language feature.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Key phrase: "at this point".
    - alserio 5y ago
      Isn't that forecasting a trend with too few data points? The field is still young and changing.
      - nlitened 5y ago
        Oh, I don’t think it is a trend. I rather see it as a curious phenomenon that makes one reflect on the trade offs we usually make when using polymorphism, and whether it’s worth all the time, not only in terms of performance, but also in terms of program architecture.
        alserio 5y ago
        Interesting. What are the program architecture tradeoffs you are suggesting?
        nlitened 5y ago
        To be honest, I have zero experience programming with Zig. But I imagine programming with Zig would lead to more literal style and fewer, simpler abstractions (no IoC, no frameworks). That might be beneficial for certain kinds of focused-scope projects.
        alserio 5y ago
        I see. They say you can solve every problem with an other indirection, and ad hoc polymorphism is an instance of that. But there are other ways to enable composition that are seldom reached for when your language makes that easy
        ncmncm 5y ago
        Every problem, except those caused by too many indirections. Each solution uses only a few language features. Different problems call for different subsets. Not using a feature on your favorite sort of problem says nothing about its value. "Ways to enable composition" poorly supported are reached for less. Poorly supporting one of them that has proven frequently useful does not improve a language.
    - sullyj3 5y ago
      It has compile time programming designed to subsume those features. So eg a generic struct becomes instead a compile time function that takes a type and returns a struct
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        That is a wholly other set of language features, for a different purpose, and is thus no substitute. Practical languages accumulate features to better address a multitude of common real-world problems. Toy languages don't. Sometimes a toy language is adopted and grown to practicality. People always complain about that.
- judofyr 5y ago
  Zig uses explicit allocations everywhere (if you want to allocate something you need a reference to an allocator) which is pretty unique even for low-level languages (e.g. C, Rust)
joppy 5y ago
Zig is certainly not weird in the way that something like prolog or scheme are.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Is Zig weird though? I find it eminently pragmatic and a lot of the interest in it comes from people migrating from popular languages like C and C++ (not that C++ isn't itself pretty weird).

nlitened 5y ago
From what I’ve seen, Zig has no built-in polymorphism features (no vtables/interfaces/traits), which is _pretty_ weird for a modern language in a good way.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  That is just because it is new. If it survives it will end up with everything.
  - judofyr 5y ago
    “Adding everything” is definitely not a part of Zig’s philosophy. https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/130#issuecomment-706011442 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/130#issuecomment-70601... > However, at this point the plan is to not add an additional dynamic dispatch language feature.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Key phrase: "at this point".
  - alserio 5y ago
    Isn't that forecasting a trend with too few data points? The field is still young and changing.
    - nlitened 5y ago
      Oh, I don’t think it is a trend. I rather see it as a curious phenomenon that makes one reflect on the trade offs we usually make when using polymorphism, and whether it’s worth all the time, not only in terms of performance, but also in terms of program architecture.
      - alserio 5y ago
        Interesting. What are the program architecture tradeoffs you are suggesting?
        nlitened 5y ago
        To be honest, I have zero experience programming with Zig. But I imagine programming with Zig would lead to more literal style and fewer, simpler abstractions (no IoC, no frameworks). That might be beneficial for certain kinds of focused-scope projects.
        alserio 5y ago
        I see. They say you can solve every problem with an other indirection, and ad hoc polymorphism is an instance of that. But there are other ways to enable composition that are seldom reached for when your language makes that easy
        ncmncm 5y ago
        Every problem, except those caused by too many indirections. Each solution uses only a few language features. Different problems call for different subsets. Not using a feature on your favorite sort of problem says nothing about its value. "Ways to enable composition" poorly supported are reached for less. Poorly supporting one of them that has proven frequently useful does not improve a language.
  - sullyj3 5y ago
    It has compile time programming designed to subsume those features. So eg a generic struct becomes instead a compile time function that takes a type and returns a struct
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      That is a wholly other set of language features, for a different purpose, and is thus no substitute. Practical languages accumulate features to better address a multitude of common real-world problems. Toy languages don't. Sometimes a toy language is adopted and grown to practicality. People always complain about that.
judofyr 5y ago
Zig uses explicit allocations everywhere (if you want to allocate something you need a reference to an allocator) which is pretty unique even for low-level languages (e.g. C, Rust)

joppy 5y ago

Zig is certainly not weird in the way that something like prolog or scheme are.