9 ms·

"inline" constructs all behave kinda the same way in Zig, like I've explained in the article. Once you're used `inline for` etc, it all works in a fairly homoge

"inline" constructs all behave kinda the same way in Zig, like I've explained in the article. Once you're used `inline for` etc, it all works in a fairly homogeneous way. This article was mostly about pointing out how `inline else` lends itself really well to writing tagged union interfaces, I would expect anybody who actively writes Zig and has metaprogramming experience to not have much trouble using it.

ephaeton 4y ago
That's what I mean with you having developed a bias and no longer being aware of it [no insult intended] ;) If you know the concept in that language and its name-tag, then it's no longer confusing, just as lisp macros aren't anymore once you grokked them. As a language in development, I would hope the on-boarding process from people with a different background would be designed to be as smooth as possible. IMO, someone coming from a different, popular systems programming language will probably have quite a different expectation what "inline" means - I know I do. Maybe finding an alias/new name for "inline" here can be considered before a "1.0".
- kristoff_it 4y ago
  Sure, I don't mean to claim that what inline does is self-evident. This article was really meant for people in the Zig community and in some sense it's unfortunate it reached the front page of HN. > Maybe finding an alias/new name for "inline" here can be considered before a "1.0". I would be on board with that, yes.
  - stephc_int13 4y ago
    The Zig syntax has been drifting for some time and it is not in a good place. I am afraid that the designers are blind to it because they are using it every day. I am also afraid that once a lot of code and libraries are written, it will be difficult / impossible to change the syntax, it might already be too late. I love Zig but the syntax quirks might considerably slow its adoption.
- int_19h 4y ago
  I don't think this is Zig-specific terminology, though. For example, F# has something similar for functions: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/functions/inline-functions https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-ref...
larsnystrom 4y ago
Why isn’t the compiler just doing inline whenever possible? Why is it a user-facing feature of the language, it looks like it should be a compiler optimization to me.
- kristoff_it 4y ago
  Inlining (in the C/C++ sense of the term) is not always preferable. On top of that, in this specific case, `inline` has a Zig-specific meaning that pertains to generics and metaprogramming in a way that has not much to do with the C/C++ use of the term.
- anonymoushn 4y ago
  The programmer might know more than the compiler about which things should be expanded at compile time and which things should not. Zig is intended to be able to be used to generate optimal code.

ephaeton 4y ago

That's what I mean with you having developed a bias and no longer being aware of it [no insult intended] ;) If you know the concept in that language and its name-tag, then it's no longer confusing, just as lisp macros aren't anymore once you grokked them. As a language in development, I would hope the on-boarding process from people with a different background would be designed to be as smooth as possible. IMO, someone coming from a different, popular systems programming language will probably have quite a different expectation what "inline" means - I know I do. Maybe finding an alias/new name for "inline" here can be considered before a "1.0".

kristoff_it 4y ago
Sure, I don't mean to claim that what inline does is self-evident. This article was really meant for people in the Zig community and in some sense it's unfortunate it reached the front page of HN. > Maybe finding an alias/new name for "inline" here can be considered before a "1.0". I would be on board with that, yes.
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  The Zig syntax has been drifting for some time and it is not in a good place. I am afraid that the designers are blind to it because they are using it every day. I am also afraid that once a lot of code and libraries are written, it will be difficult / impossible to change the syntax, it might already be too late. I love Zig but the syntax quirks might considerably slow its adoption.
int_19h 4y ago
I don't think this is Zig-specific terminology, though. For example, F# has something similar for functions: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/functions/inline-functions https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-ref...

larsnystrom 4y ago

Why isn’t the compiler just doing inline whenever possible? Why is it a user-facing feature of the language, it looks like it should be a compiler optimization to me.

kristoff_it 4y ago
Inlining (in the C/C++ sense of the term) is not always preferable. On top of that, in this specific case, `inline` has a Zig-specific meaning that pertains to generics and metaprogramming in a way that has not much to do with the C/C++ use of the term.
anonymoushn 4y ago
The programmer might know more than the compiler about which things should be expanded at compile time and which things should not. Zig is intended to be able to be used to generate optimal code.