11 ms·

Zig is the new HN clickbait, taking over Rust's spot. That's a good sign for the language, honestly

by TakeBlaster16 4y ago

Ygg2 4y ago
How long till we start complaining that Zig followers are cult like? Asking as Rustecean.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- infamouscow 4y ago
  I've noticed people that like writing code in Zig are fans the language and the people that like writing code in Rust center their identity around the language. The former leads to people saying they enjoy writing code in Zig, the later leads to religious zealotry and moral condemnation for using anything other than Rust.
  - davidjfelix 4y ago
    Which language is the one where you make sweeping generalizations?
    - hu3 4y ago
      It's funny you say that when a rustacean just posted below that it is irresponsible to use unsafe languages. Instead of focusing on tradeoffs they chose to call others irresponsible.
      - pcwalton 4y ago
        It's perfectly reasonable to take the position that it's deeply problematic for a language aiming for wide use in 2022 to not be memory safe. There's no requirement that you "focus on tradeoffs", especially since real people get hurt by memory safety problems.
        kristoff_it 4y ago
        I think you're actively hurting the project that you care about in your ineffective crusade, but hey, don't let me stop you.
      - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
        > It's funny you say that when [member of group] just [did something once]. It's not a sweeping generalization! They always do this!
      - tadfisher 4y ago
        That comment does not mention Rust.
  - ameixaseca 4y ago
    Not sure which lens you are using for coming to this conclusion. In my experience, most people writing Rust code have no "moral superiority" and treat Rust as a "better tool", not as a religion per se. However, what I've seen in the discourse of several programmers that claim to prefer Zig is the assumption that Rust is "not really that big of a deal". There's a constant minimization of the advancements both the ownership system and the safety approach provide, and a lack of recognition for the fact that the language is a "game changer" in the industry. Overall, this looks a lot like rationalization of an emotional choice, which for me is much more close to religious zealotry.
    - kristoff_it 4y ago
      > However, what I've seen in the discourse of several programmers that claim to prefer Zig is the assumption that Rust is "not really that big of a deal". There's a constant minimization of the advancements both the ownership system and the safety approach provide, and a lack of recognition for the fact that the language is a "game changer" in the industry. I think you have inadvertently worded this in a way that silently confirms what the parent poster was saying. But more generally, while I can't speak for the entirety of the Zig community, the people involved with Zig directly tend to be aware of Rust's strengths. The problem is that one of the reasons why Zig exists (and is having some level of success) is because some people just don't want to deal with abstraction-heavy code. Some people value simplicity over a complex language with a memory-safe subset. And the value of simplicity is not just a matter of aesthetics. Simplicity is a defense against bugs, because memory safety is not the end goal, correctness is. https://twitter.com/croloris/status/1568342336580755456 https://twitter.com/croloris/status/1568342336580755456
      - Ygg2 4y ago
        I think the issue is memory safety is reachable. Correctness is either extremely hard (proof program satisfied specifications) to nigh impossible (make sure all icon pointy things are aligned).
        kristoff_it 4y ago
refulgentis 4y ago
Good sign for the language, bad sign for HN. I totally get it's nicer than C, I love it too, but it's completely irresponsible to push a language without a memory safety story, in 2022, this hard. From that relatively obvious conclusion it devolves into tedious nerdsnipes. Yes there are edge cases.
- skohan 4y ago
  That's a rather extreme position.
  - pcwalton 4y ago
    It's not an extreme position. Most languages in wide use, and virtually all new languages, are memory safe. Zig is an extreme outlier in this regard.
    - skohan 4y ago
      That's extremely hyperbolic. Zig is a systems programming language with an explicit goal of operating at a low level of abstraction. Virtually all languages in its class are less memory safe than Zig.
      - pcwalton 4y ago
        Except Rust? We can't ignore the fact that Rust has shown that memory safety is not incompatible with low-level semantics. (Of course, Ada, Cyclone, CCured, etc. showed this much earlier than Rust.)
        skohan 4y ago
        Zig has very different goals than Rust. The explicit theory of the language is that Rust's approach to memory safety creates costly tradeoffs which are not needed for all use-cases. It is very much not the consensus that memory safety is a requirement for any modern language. Asserting that it should be a requirement is an extreme position.

Zig is the new HN clickbait, taking over Rust's spot. That's a good sign for the language, honestly

Ygg2 4y ago

How long till we start complaining that Zig followers are cult like? Asking as Rustecean.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
infamouscow 4y ago
I've noticed people that like writing code in Zig are fans the language and the people that like writing code in Rust center their identity around the language. The former leads to people saying they enjoy writing code in Zig, the later leads to religious zealotry and moral condemnation for using anything other than Rust.
- davidjfelix 4y ago
  Which language is the one where you make sweeping generalizations?
  - hu3 4y ago
    It's funny you say that when a rustacean just posted below that it is irresponsible to use unsafe languages. Instead of focusing on tradeoffs they chose to call others irresponsible.
    - pcwalton 4y ago
      It's perfectly reasonable to take the position that it's deeply problematic for a language aiming for wide use in 2022 to not be memory safe. There's no requirement that you "focus on tradeoffs", especially since real people get hurt by memory safety problems.
      - kristoff_it 4y ago
        I think you're actively hurting the project that you care about in your ineffective crusade, but hey, don't let me stop you.
    - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
      > It's funny you say that when [member of group] just [did something once]. It's not a sweeping generalization! They always do this!
    - tadfisher 4y ago
      That comment does not mention Rust.
- ameixaseca 4y ago
  Not sure which lens you are using for coming to this conclusion. In my experience, most people writing Rust code have no "moral superiority" and treat Rust as a "better tool", not as a religion per se. However, what I've seen in the discourse of several programmers that claim to prefer Zig is the assumption that Rust is "not really that big of a deal". There's a constant minimization of the advancements both the ownership system and the safety approach provide, and a lack of recognition for the fact that the language is a "game changer" in the industry. Overall, this looks a lot like rationalization of an emotional choice, which for me is much more close to religious zealotry.
  - kristoff_it 4y ago
    > However, what I've seen in the discourse of several programmers that claim to prefer Zig is the assumption that Rust is "not really that big of a deal". There's a constant minimization of the advancements both the ownership system and the safety approach provide, and a lack of recognition for the fact that the language is a "game changer" in the industry. I think you have inadvertently worded this in a way that silently confirms what the parent poster was saying. But more generally, while I can't speak for the entirety of the Zig community, the people involved with Zig directly tend to be aware of Rust's strengths. The problem is that one of the reasons why Zig exists (and is having some level of success) is because some people just don't want to deal with abstraction-heavy code. Some people value simplicity over a complex language with a memory-safe subset. And the value of simplicity is not just a matter of aesthetics. Simplicity is a defense against bugs, because memory safety is not the end goal, correctness is. https://twitter.com/croloris/status/1568342336580755456 https://twitter.com/croloris/status/1568342336580755456
    - Ygg2 4y ago
      I think the issue is memory safety is reachable. Correctness is either extremely hard (proof program satisfied specifications) to nigh impossible (make sure all icon pointy things are aligned).
      - kristoff_it 4y ago

refulgentis 4y ago

Good sign for the language, bad sign for HN. I totally get it's nicer than C, I love it too, but it's completely irresponsible to push a language without a memory safety story, in 2022, this hard. From that relatively obvious conclusion it devolves into tedious nerdsnipes. Yes there are edge cases.

skohan 4y ago
That's a rather extreme position.
- pcwalton 4y ago
  It's not an extreme position. Most languages in wide use, and virtually all new languages, are memory safe. Zig is an extreme outlier in this regard.
  - skohan 4y ago
    That's extremely hyperbolic. Zig is a systems programming language with an explicit goal of operating at a low level of abstraction. Virtually all languages in its class are less memory safe than Zig.
    - pcwalton 4y ago
      Except Rust? We can't ignore the fact that Rust has shown that memory safety is not incompatible with low-level semantics. (Of course, Ada, Cyclone, CCured, etc. showed this much earlier than Rust.)
      - skohan 4y ago
        Zig has very different goals than Rust. The explicit theory of the language is that Rust's approach to memory safety creates costly tradeoffs which are not needed for all use-cases. It is very much not the consensus that memory safety is a requirement for any modern language. Asserting that it should be a requirement is an extreme position.