4 ms·

> because it (IMHO) doesn't adds enough business value I dunno about this. We're seeing Zig being used as the compiler toolchain in per-existing C and C++ code

by TUSF 4y ago

> because it (IMHO) doesn't adds enough business value I dunno about this. We're seeing Zig being used as the compiler toolchain in per-existing C and C++ codebases here and there, and is used by at least one big tech companies for this very reason[0] and once you're already using the build toolchain, there's less barrier to then using the language to extend your code. As far as I can tell, long-term, that's probably how Zig is going to work its way into the space, being the all-in-one toolchain for managing existing code, and then having a programming language that's as low-level as C, but without the complexity of C++/Rust, that just happens to come with said toolchain. From some of Andrew's comments, it also seems that the planned package manager will also be meant for C & C++ projects. These aren't all features that don't already exist in other tools individually, but as far as I know (which admittedly isn't a lot) there aren't any that bring it all in a single convenient package with sane defaults that works out of the box. [0]: https://jakstys.lt/2022/how-uber-uses-zig/ https://jakstys.lt/2022/how-uber-uses-zig/

littlestymaar 4y ago
> I dunno about this. We're seeing Zig being used as the compiler toolchain in per-existing C and C++ codebases here and there, and is used by at least one big tech companies for this very reason[0] and once you're already using the build toolchain, there's less barrier to then using the language to extend your code. You're right that the Zig toolchain actually provides significant value (I was talking about Zig-the-language, not Zig-the-toolchain here), but I think most of the barrier to add a new language is still there (building expertise in the company on a new language is costly so you better expect a nice pay-off). The reason why I don't think Zig will ever really become mainstream is that it's targeting C developers, yet people still using C in 2022 are also the most conservative you'll ever find in the industry. Either because they work in domains where you cannot afford to change anything and they even stick with ANSI C and a 15 years old compiler that have been qualified some time ago after a lengthy process (think embedded). Or they're simply keeping a big existing code-base alive with barely enough resource to keep them running (think about the entire open-source stack from the 90s and before that keeps the internet running), in these circles adopting a new language requires heroic effort that I doubt anyone would pay for. Other than that, most people doing low-level/high performance stuff have been using C++ for a while, so IMHO the need for «a better C, not a better C++» pretty is low.

by TUSF 4y ago

littlestymaar 4y ago

> I dunno about this. We're seeing Zig being used as the compiler toolchain in per-existing C and C++ codebases here and there, and is used by at least one big tech companies for this very reason[0] and once you're already using the build toolchain, there's less barrier to then using the language to extend your code. You're right that the Zig toolchain actually provides significant value (I was talking about Zig-the-language, not Zig-the-toolchain here), but I think most of the barrier to add a new language is still there (building expertise in the company on a new language is costly so you better expect a nice pay-off). The reason why I don't think Zig will ever really become mainstream is that it's targeting C developers, yet people still using C in 2022 are also the most conservative you'll ever find in the industry. Either because they work in domains where you cannot afford to change anything and they even stick with ANSI C and a 15 years old compiler that have been qualified some time ago after a lengthy process (think embedded). Or they're simply keeping a big existing code-base alive with barely enough resource to keep them running (think about the entire open-source stack from the 90s and before that keeps the internet running), in these circles adopting a new language requires heroic effort that I doubt anyone would pay for. Other than that, most people doing low-level/high performance stuff have been using C++ for a while, so IMHO the need for «a better C, not a better C++» pretty is low.