3 ms·
Well Rust has already passed 1.0, so it makes sense that it's more stable. Rust is also twice the age of Zig.
by skribanto 4y ago
Well Rust has already passed 1.0, so it makes sense that it's more stable. Rust is also twice the age of Zig.
- j-pb 4y agoI'm not arguing that Zig should have the same stability as Rust, which would be unreasonable. My point is that there is no concept of stability at all. Zig currently treats "async" as the same kind of unstable as "for" and "@max". I don't mind "for" being unstable, the new syntax IS much better than the old one. But by also providing for example a stable "loop { break; }" the language would empower people from the community to focus on building tooling by making the tradeoff of restricting themselves to a more more cumbersome, sugarless, and minimalistic subset.