3 ms·

Here is an example with a keyboard firmware why you might not always want all that complexity. https://kevinlynagh.com/rust-zig/ https://kevinlynagh.com/rust-z

Here is an example with a keyboard firmware why you might not always want all that complexity. https://kevinlynagh.com/rust-zig/ https://kevinlynagh.com/rust-zig/ https://zig.news/aransentin/analysis-of-the-overhead-of-a-minimal-zig-program-4lg0 https://zig.news/aransentin/analysis-of-the-overhead-of-a-mi... The point of languages like C and Zig is that they are only a bit higher level than assembly for portability, but otherwise they don't hinder you to do whatever. It's up to you to solve problems like memory safety. You might not even have a memory safety problem because you don't have memory in the first place, or your use case makes memory safety trivial.

jolux 5y ago
I read the thread about the keyboard at the time. The author literally said it was a hobby project and they weren't concerned about safety, which is why they weren't interested in all of the solutions people offered for their problems with Rust. Zig's fine if you don't care about safety. But that's not really how I've heard it advertised. > but otherwise they don't hinder you to do whatever Neither does Rust! You can choose to ignore what the compiler wants you to do and just program with unsafe everywhere. The difference is that you don't have the option of writing safe code in Zig and C. > It's up to you to solve problems like memory safety. And so far, memory safety is not actually a problem that programmers have been able to solve by sheer force of will without borrow checkers or garbage collection. For a subset of trivial programs, sure. But not at any reasonable scale.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]