> A nice thing you get in return tho is for separate platforms you can disable code just in the language itself; it doesn't need to be a preprocessor or or hand

> A nice thing you get in return tho is for separate platforms you can disable code just in the language itself; it doesn't need to be a preprocessor or or handled magically in the build system. I don’t know if I consider this a nice thing when thinking about it from a systems language lens. When working at the low level, I like the immediate clarity and compile-time feedback that preprocessor-like checks bring. They’re not perfect, but I think I prefer that instead of relying on laziness. > It's also not nearly as bad as a dynamically typed language: you might have broken code you won't realize until you try to use it, but you'll always realize at compile-time. This is correct, but to me, the elephant in the room here though is that this makes it much easier to introduce broken technical debt into a codebase. This likely means that when conducting large-scale refactors in a Zig codebase, as the amount of potentially broken code increases, the count of hair strands remaining in one’s scalp decreases. Zig is an awesome language, but frankly, I think compiler laziness like this is pretty odd for a statically-typed systems language and not the behavior one would intuitively expect.