4 ms·

If zig catches on then the question may change from "why zig" to "do I really need rust?". Rust has a higher entry barrier and is harder to use daily. Is the sa

by sryie 4y ago

If zig catches on then the question may change from "why zig" to "do I really need rust?". Rust has a higher entry barrier and is harder to use daily. Is the safety guarantee worth it? In my experience, it is easier to fix a bug than to prove to the rust compiler that there is no bug. I just need a language that finds and reports the bugs (before production). Zig's error handling is interesting in this regard and it may be "good enough". Beyond that, I would prefer to spend my time on the real problem rather than appeasing the compiler.

throwawaymaths 4y ago
I think a static borrow checker tool is very likely going to be in the future of zig ecosystem (unlikely to be in the mainline, but that's okay), especially after the intermediate representations stabilize.
- noodledoodletwo 4y ago
  I'll believe it when I see it hit 1.0 and has a healthy user base.
noodledoodletwo 4y ago
It's really not that hard to use once you invest some time into it. I know where you are coming from, but appeasing the compiler actually means "I am writing safe code". Rather then "it compiled let's see what happens in production"
- sryie 4y ago
  "some time" is the entry barrier I was referring to and increases the cost of onboarding and adoption. However, rust also incurs a non-negligible ongoing productivity cost for its complexity. Rust can provide some guarantees but it still won't protect you from logic errors or a "clever" coworker. In comparison, zig is simple and at the end of the day readability is my best defense against bugs/errors. There was an interesting comparison (and discussion) of zig vs rust safety a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537693 I find myself agreeing with pron and others in that discussion when they say no one really wants to use a safe language. What they want are correct programs. What remains to be seen is how easy it is to write correct programs in each and the values people place on the deltas between the two languages.
  - mcronce 4y ago
    > rust also incurs a non-negligible ongoing productivity cost for its complexity This isn't really consistent with my experience. Compared to writing other languages with varying levels of strictness (C, Python, Go to name a few), Rust's compiler saves me a lot of time writing tests and finding bugs. It doesn't save me the work of fixing them, but in my experience, bugs that are hard to find and easy to fix drastically outnumber bugs that are easy to find and hard to fix. That said, I haven't tried Zig. It's on my radar, but just haven't had a new project to start lately.
    - sryie 4y ago
      I am surprised that you don't encounter a productivity cost in rust vs languages with a gc (like python and go). If that were typical then I assume everyone would be using it. What do you consider to be the tradeoffs between rust and other languages? What are its drawbacks in your experience? How much rust experience do you have compared to other languages?
      - noodledoodletwo 4y ago
        The productivity cost is mostly up front, once you understand borrowing it's seriously not bad in 99% of cases. Also, you can be initially productive in C or C++, but how much time goes into trying to fix undefined behavior, threading issues,etc. More importantly, when do those hours get spent? Is it after a customer is screaming into your support chatbot, or is it before you launch during normal development? To me that's the difference and the killer feature. That's why ms, aws, etc are using it. Not because it's new and marginally/debatably better then c/c++. Once I started realizing what the borrow checker was saying it wasn't "fighting the compiler" I realized what I was asking the compiler to do was really not a good idea. It becomes your friend basically. I didn't make this post to shill rust, I'm pretty language agnostic to my own detriment... The point is, it's worth considering and trying it again if you didn't get it the first time around. Rust took me 2x to become a tool I'd use, I honestly hated it at first.
        4y ago

by sryie 4y ago

throwawaymaths 4y ago

I think a static borrow checker tool is very likely going to be in the future of zig ecosystem (unlikely to be in the mainline, but that's okay), especially after the intermediate representations stabilize.

noodledoodletwo 4y ago
I'll believe it when I see it hit 1.0 and has a healthy user base.

noodledoodletwo 4y ago

It's really not that hard to use once you invest some time into it. I know where you are coming from, but appeasing the compiler actually means "I am writing safe code". Rather then "it compiled let's see what happens in production"

sryie 4y ago
"some time" is the entry barrier I was referring to and increases the cost of onboarding and adoption. However, rust also incurs a non-negligible ongoing productivity cost for its complexity. Rust can provide some guarantees but it still won't protect you from logic errors or a "clever" coworker. In comparison, zig is simple and at the end of the day readability is my best defense against bugs/errors. There was an interesting comparison (and discussion) of zig vs rust safety a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537693 I find myself agreeing with pron and others in that discussion when they say no one really wants to use a safe language. What they want are correct programs. What remains to be seen is how easy it is to write correct programs in each and the values people place on the deltas between the two languages.
- mcronce 4y ago
  > rust also incurs a non-negligible ongoing productivity cost for its complexity This isn't really consistent with my experience. Compared to writing other languages with varying levels of strictness (C, Python, Go to name a few), Rust's compiler saves me a lot of time writing tests and finding bugs. It doesn't save me the work of fixing them, but in my experience, bugs that are hard to find and easy to fix drastically outnumber bugs that are easy to find and hard to fix. That said, I haven't tried Zig. It's on my radar, but just haven't had a new project to start lately.
  - sryie 4y ago
    I am surprised that you don't encounter a productivity cost in rust vs languages with a gc (like python and go). If that were typical then I assume everyone would be using it. What do you consider to be the tradeoffs between rust and other languages? What are its drawbacks in your experience? How much rust experience do you have compared to other languages?
    - noodledoodletwo 4y ago
      The productivity cost is mostly up front, once you understand borrowing it's seriously not bad in 99% of cases. Also, you can be initially productive in C or C++, but how much time goes into trying to fix undefined behavior, threading issues,etc. More importantly, when do those hours get spent? Is it after a customer is screaming into your support chatbot, or is it before you launch during normal development? To me that's the difference and the killer feature. That's why ms, aws, etc are using it. Not because it's new and marginally/debatably better then c/c++. Once I started realizing what the borrow checker was saying it wasn't "fighting the compiler" I realized what I was asking the compiler to do was really not a good idea. It becomes your friend basically. I didn't make this post to shill rust, I'm pretty language agnostic to my own detriment... The point is, it's worth considering and trying it again if you didn't get it the first time around. Rust took me 2x to become a tool I'd use, I honestly hated it at first.
      - 4y ago