5 ms·
My problems with Zig: - the language ergonomics sucks - syntax to play with arrays sucks (zeroing for example) - lack of operator overloading for my math typ
by Kukumber 4y ago
My problems with Zig:
- the language ergonomics sucks
- syntax to play with arrays sucks (zeroing for example)
- lack of operator overloading for my math types
- too many repetition and casting, the compiler is not smart at all
- slow build speed
Things i love:
- build system, all in zig
- comptime
- module is basically a struct, so you can wrap your stuff in a file and import it as a struct, lovely
- the language remains simple enough to pickup, learn and to build any kind of software, it is enabler
Overall it's way too rigid, i miss the fluidity and liberty of C
It'll find its niche, it'll serve as good build system, but it definitely not a good contender for a C alternative
I couldn't care less about the illusion of memory safety with rust, chasing that language is a waste of time imo, and it's very dangerous, we'll see ton of new developers thinking their software is safe because the borrow checker didn't complain
- SubjectToChange 4y ago> ... and it's very dangerous, we'll see ton of new developers thinking their software is safe because the borrow checker didn't complain Would new developers be capable of writing secure C?
- Kukumber 4y agoNo, but that's not the point of C The problem is Rust advertise itself as a safe language due to the borrow checker, wich is a false and dangerous claim
- brundolf 4y agoThere are different definitions of safety If what you mean by "safe" is "memory-safe", then you're wrong. It is definitely truthful to say that Rust code is guaranteed memory safe (within safe code sections, barring compiler bugs, etc). If what you meant by "safe" is "bug-free", then it never claims to guarantee that your code is free of bugs- that would be nonsense (though it does a lot to help out!), and I don't think people would get that idea.