3 ms·

It's important to consider that for zig at this stage, "not having valid documentation" is expected. At some point not having valid docs will become considered

It's important to consider that for zig at this stage, "not having valid documentation" is expected. At some point not having valid docs will become considered to be unacceptable. Forcing people to read the code puts pressure on the code to be clean. Not writing docs against an unstable API is a strategy to make it freer for the authors to change the API, possibly in sweeping breaking ways (for example allocgate).

the_duke 5y ago
I also tried out Zig a while ago and was frustrated by the lack of good learning materials. Zig is 6 years old. Rust had much better documentation at this stage of development. To be fair though: Rust also had corporate backing and a larger fan base contributing to the book and std docs.
- dnautics 5y ago
  Seriously, comparing by timeline like that is an unfair comparison. You should probably kick a few dollars into the zig foundation as penance for having made it publically. ;)
  - Zababa 5y ago
    > comparing by time spent is an unfair comparison Yes, and language competition is unfair. As a user, I don't care that Zig is more "cost/time effective" than Rust or Java, I care about the end result. The end result, right now, is a worse documentation than lots of other languages. That doesn't mean that the people behind Zig are bad or anything like that. That just means that when choosing between X and Zig, Zig's documentation (and lack of such documentation) will influence my choice. I'm not sure why you would not compare by timeline, as this is probably the best predictor of where a language will be in the next years, which is important data as well.
    - dnautics 5y ago
      If you're going to compare that way (and I contend you shouldn't) at least normalize by programmer hours, or take into account growth.
      - Zababa 5y ago
        Why? This doesn't make sense to me, for a few reasons reasons: 1) I'm looking for the best, not the best by programmer hours or growth. Zig has accomplished a lot and I'm impressed by the work of people on it. But it's still a strictly worse option than many others. I think it's poised to be great in the future, but right now it's not good enough. 2) Organizations always become less effective as they grow, Zig being small would have an "unfair" advantage since they're still small. 3) Normalizing by programmer hours would lead you to a language that took a few hours to be developped, but is not good at all. This doesn't make sense. I feel like you're evaluating Zig as if it was a company on which to invest. In that case, Zig is a good pick. It's small but already at a good point, and probably will have a good growth. But if you're looking for a supplier right now, I wouldn't bet on them. It's still small, young, and depend on a few people.
        dnautics 5y ago
        > if you're looking for a supplier right now literally only you introduced this 'looking for a supplier right now' concept. I hope you enjoyed knocking down this strawman.
        Zababa 5y ago
        What are you talking about? We're talking about the current state of Zig. From this thread of comments, on your messages: > It's important to consider that for zig at this stage, "not having valid documentation" is expected. At some point not having valid docs will become considered to be unacceptable. > Seriously, comparing by timeline like that is an unfair comparison. The article is about failing to learn right now. The first comment was about the absence of documentation right now. You're defending Zig being worse than other languages by saying that Zig is younger, which is a fair point. But you also said that comparing by timelines is unfair, which I think is wrong, which is why we're having this conversation. My point is that comparing by timeline is totally fair, because people are evaluating a language on what it is, and not what it can be. To speak in more precise terms: the current position of Zig is worse than other languages, especially in terms of documentation. The position adjusted for the timeline of Zig is also worse than many other languages at that point. You're asking us to not compare by position or position adjusted for the timeline, but by position relative to the ressources invested, and/or position adjusted for the timeline relative to the ressources invested. I'm saying that this comparaison is useless, because 1) those relation doesn't scale linearly, and 2) because people are interested in the actual position and position adjusted for the timeline, not the efficiency. Since you reject comparing the evolution of the documentation of Zig through time ("Seriously, comparing by timeline like that is an unfair comparison.") and right now ("It's important to consider that for zig at this stage, "not having valid documentation" is expected."), your only argument seems to be about the future: "At some point not having valid docs will become considered to be unacceptable.". The vast majority of people, when faced with a language that looks not great at the moment but could have a bright future, will react with "I'll take a look again in a year or two". You argue for the opposite, that people should contribute to Zig instead: "You should probably kick a few dollars into the zig foundation as penance for having made it publically. ;)". That is a weak point, and won't convince the people that have seen languages come and go. Especially these days when new languages have great documentation, error messages, and onboarding in general.
- samatman 5y ago
  Rust was just some guy's project at first, much like Zig, and it started in 2006. It was barely alpha in 2012 and wasn't stable until 2015: and it had had corporate backing for six years at that point. Patience.

the_duke 5y ago

I also tried out Zig a while ago and was frustrated by the lack of good learning materials. Zig is 6 years old. Rust had much better documentation at this stage of development. To be fair though: Rust also had corporate backing and a larger fan base contributing to the book and std docs.

dnautics 5y ago
Seriously, comparing by timeline like that is an unfair comparison. You should probably kick a few dollars into the zig foundation as penance for having made it publically. ;)
- Zababa 5y ago
  > comparing by time spent is an unfair comparison Yes, and language competition is unfair. As a user, I don't care that Zig is more "cost/time effective" than Rust or Java, I care about the end result. The end result, right now, is a worse documentation than lots of other languages. That doesn't mean that the people behind Zig are bad or anything like that. That just means that when choosing between X and Zig, Zig's documentation (and lack of such documentation) will influence my choice. I'm not sure why you would not compare by timeline, as this is probably the best predictor of where a language will be in the next years, which is important data as well.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    If you're going to compare that way (and I contend you shouldn't) at least normalize by programmer hours, or take into account growth.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      Why? This doesn't make sense to me, for a few reasons reasons: 1) I'm looking for the best, not the best by programmer hours or growth. Zig has accomplished a lot and I'm impressed by the work of people on it. But it's still a strictly worse option than many others. I think it's poised to be great in the future, but right now it's not good enough. 2) Organizations always become less effective as they grow, Zig being small would have an "unfair" advantage since they're still small. 3) Normalizing by programmer hours would lead you to a language that took a few hours to be developped, but is not good at all. This doesn't make sense. I feel like you're evaluating Zig as if it was a company on which to invest. In that case, Zig is a good pick. It's small but already at a good point, and probably will have a good growth. But if you're looking for a supplier right now, I wouldn't bet on them. It's still small, young, and depend on a few people.
      - dnautics 5y ago
        > if you're looking for a supplier right now literally only you introduced this 'looking for a supplier right now' concept. I hope you enjoyed knocking down this strawman.
        Zababa 5y ago
        What are you talking about? We're talking about the current state of Zig. From this thread of comments, on your messages: > It's important to consider that for zig at this stage, "not having valid documentation" is expected. At some point not having valid docs will become considered to be unacceptable. > Seriously, comparing by timeline like that is an unfair comparison. The article is about failing to learn right now. The first comment was about the absence of documentation right now. You're defending Zig being worse than other languages by saying that Zig is younger, which is a fair point. But you also said that comparing by timelines is unfair, which I think is wrong, which is why we're having this conversation. My point is that comparing by timeline is totally fair, because people are evaluating a language on what it is, and not what it can be. To speak in more precise terms: the current position of Zig is worse than other languages, especially in terms of documentation. The position adjusted for the timeline of Zig is also worse than many other languages at that point. You're asking us to not compare by position or position adjusted for the timeline, but by position relative to the ressources invested, and/or position adjusted for the timeline relative to the ressources invested. I'm saying that this comparaison is useless, because 1) those relation doesn't scale linearly, and 2) because people are interested in the actual position and position adjusted for the timeline, not the efficiency. Since you reject comparing the evolution of the documentation of Zig through time ("Seriously, comparing by timeline like that is an unfair comparison.") and right now ("It's important to consider that for zig at this stage, "not having valid documentation" is expected."), your only argument seems to be about the future: "At some point not having valid docs will become considered to be unacceptable.". The vast majority of people, when faced with a language that looks not great at the moment but could have a bright future, will react with "I'll take a look again in a year or two". You argue for the opposite, that people should contribute to Zig instead: "You should probably kick a few dollars into the zig foundation as penance for having made it publically. ;)". That is a weak point, and won't convince the people that have seen languages come and go. Especially these days when new languages have great documentation, error messages, and onboarding in general.
samatman 5y ago
Rust was just some guy's project at first, much like Zig, and it started in 2006. It was barely alpha in 2012 and wasn't stable until 2015: and it had had corporate backing for six years at that point. Patience.