2 ms·
Essentially the other comments capture my view. Speed and memory safety with a rigorous type and language system that disallows unsafe operations unless explici
by fnordpiglet 4y ago
Essentially the other comments capture my view. Speed and memory safety with a rigorous type and language system that disallows unsafe operations unless explicitly marked as such is worth a lot. I don’t think this means zig is worthless, and I see a lot of utility in a fast to write lower cognitive load language that offers the same speed and memory efficiency at the cost of runtime safety, but I don’t trust myself or other programmers to do a good enough job. Memory safety bugs are just so difficult to reason about most of the time that I find the compile time safety mechanisms worth whatever overhead they impose, to a point. Rust is far from reaching that point and is generally easy to develop very complex stuff very quickly. So, after reading the article (I’m more familiar with rust than zig, so it was very informative) it led me to conclude it’ll be fun to learn zig but I don’t think it’ll be useful for Serious Stuff.