4 ms·

Zig is C-like. D is C++-like. Zig has first-class compile-time metaprogramming. D is a kitchen sink language; it has many more features than even C++ does. Zig

Zig is C-like. D is C++-like. Zig has first-class compile-time metaprogramming. D is a kitchen sink language; it has many more features than even C++ does. Zig is minimalistic and strictly imperative rather than multi-paradigm. D has a cult following but hasn't really taken off. Zig is a relative newcomer trying to prove itself.

systems 3y ago
i think the term "D has a cult following" is a bit harsh D's community is small, that is it, nothing cult like, they dont over defend D most of the community seem to be happy using other languages etc .. but i agree with D being a kitchen sink language, trying to be many things, but never being the absolute best at anything, which i think is why it never really took off i am really hopeful for Zig, trying to be a more pragmatic C replacement
- Semaphor 3y ago
  > i think the term "D has a cult following" is a bit harsh D's community is small, that is it, nothing cult like I think "cult following" is used here like you would for movies, it’s not actually cult-like, it’s more that it’s a rather small, close-knit community.
pron 3y ago
> Zig is C-like Only in the sense that the language is simple and small, but C pays for that by being inexpressive (you can find families of C++ programs for which an equivalent C program would require exponentially more code). Zig, on the other hand, is small and simple while being just as expressive as C++. It achieves that through a remarkable observation: many primitive features can be avoided with a powerful enough compile-time computation mechanism with introspection. Zig is so revolutionary in its design that it's hard to compare it to anything else. Or, put another way, any comparison is sure to miss out on some very foundational piece. So yes, in some sense Zig is like C (simple, low-level), but it's as expressive as C++. In another sense, Zig is like Scheme (minimalistic elegance), and yet it feels familiar and it does not rely on macros for its core power. In other ways it's like Go (easy to learn, easy cross-compilation), but it gives full control and is more flexible. At this point, Zig is sui generis.
- 1980phipsi 3y ago
  > Zig is so revolutionary in its design that it's hard to compare it to anything else. I mean, Zig has an interesting combination of functionality, but I wouldn't say that the individual pieces are revolutionary. Who knows though, the whole could be more revolutionary than the sum of it's parts...
  - ngrilly 3y ago
    Zig's take on comptime is quite new (which is the main point of the article being discussed). Error handling and async/await as well.
    - 1980phipsi 3y ago
      Zig's take on comptime is slightly different from C++ and D, but that doesn't make it revolutionary. It has first class types, which allows you to pass them to a function along with normal function parameters, instead of having a separate syntax for it like C++ and D. But it's not really new.
      - pron 3y ago
        That's a little like saying that smartphones weren't really new because we had mobile phones and calculators and cameras and video cameras and handheld games before. Zig's comptime is revolutionary and really new in that it replaces many other separate features and is the basis of Zig's minimalism. Figuring out how to discard features is much more difficult than adding them, and simplicity is something that's impossible to add once it's lost. The message is not the existence of a rather general compile time execution, but that with a particular design of such a mechanism you can do away with other things.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - pron 3y ago
    To say something truly original you don't have to invent new words.
1980phipsi 3y ago
I agree with most of this, but I would say that D was probably designed to be an alternative to C++ or Java. Zig shares many of C's design philosophies, though I think D's syntax is a little closer to C's than Zig's is to C's. D also has a betterC mode that removes some of those "kitchen sink" features, but I couldn't say how popular it's use is. Many people who use D like some of those features. Zig's more minimalistic approach to language features is closer to C's approach. Zig likely has been influenced by D (among other languages), but I wouldn't be surprised if D's new importC functionality has been influenced by Zig. I don't use D (or C or C++) at work, but learning D and using it at home has made me a much better programmer in the languages I use for work. Maybe I would have learned those lessons with C or C++, but I guess I took more easily to D than them.
- Sharlin 3y ago
  > I agree with most of this, but I would say that D was probably designed to be an alternative to C++ or Java You're agreeing with me then! D was pretty explicitly created due to WalterBright's (incidentally a prolific 60k+-karma HN user!), frustration with C++ and presumably the problems that stem from its requirement to maintain almost a 100% C compatibility. Bright is the founder of Digital Mars, a small company developing C and C++ (and D) compilers, so he has first-hand experience. Since 2007 D has been co-developed by Andrei Alexandrescu, a well-known C++ expert and one of the pioneers of template metaprogramming.

systems 3y ago

i think the term "D has a cult following" is a bit harsh D's community is small, that is it, nothing cult like, they dont over defend D most of the community seem to be happy using other languages etc .. but i agree with D being a kitchen sink language, trying to be many things, but never being the absolute best at anything, which i think is why it never really took off i am really hopeful for Zig, trying to be a more pragmatic C replacement

Semaphor 3y ago
> i think the term "D has a cult following" is a bit harsh D's community is small, that is it, nothing cult like I think "cult following" is used here like you would for movies, it’s not actually cult-like, it’s more that it’s a rather small, close-knit community.

pron 3y ago

> Zig is C-like Only in the sense that the language is simple and small, but C pays for that by being inexpressive (you can find families of C++ programs for which an equivalent C program would require exponentially more code). Zig, on the other hand, is small and simple while being just as expressive as C++. It achieves that through a remarkable observation: many primitive features can be avoided with a powerful enough compile-time computation mechanism with introspection. Zig is so revolutionary in its design that it's hard to compare it to anything else. Or, put another way, any comparison is sure to miss out on some very foundational piece. So yes, in some sense Zig is like C (simple, low-level), but it's as expressive as C++. In another sense, Zig is like Scheme (minimalistic elegance), and yet it feels familiar and it does not rely on macros for its core power. In other ways it's like Go (easy to learn, easy cross-compilation), but it gives full control and is more flexible. At this point, Zig is sui generis.

1980phipsi 3y ago
> Zig is so revolutionary in its design that it's hard to compare it to anything else. I mean, Zig has an interesting combination of functionality, but I wouldn't say that the individual pieces are revolutionary. Who knows though, the whole could be more revolutionary than the sum of it's parts...
- ngrilly 3y ago
  Zig's take on comptime is quite new (which is the main point of the article being discussed). Error handling and async/await as well.
  - 1980phipsi 3y ago
    Zig's take on comptime is slightly different from C++ and D, but that doesn't make it revolutionary. It has first class types, which allows you to pass them to a function along with normal function parameters, instead of having a separate syntax for it like C++ and D. But it's not really new.
    - pron 3y ago
      That's a little like saying that smartphones weren't really new because we had mobile phones and calculators and cameras and video cameras and handheld games before. Zig's comptime is revolutionary and really new in that it replaces many other separate features and is the basis of Zig's minimalism. Figuring out how to discard features is much more difficult than adding them, and simplicity is something that's impossible to add once it's lost. The message is not the existence of a rather general compile time execution, but that with a particular design of such a mechanism you can do away with other things.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- pron 3y ago
  To say something truly original you don't have to invent new words.

1980phipsi 3y ago

I agree with most of this, but I would say that D was probably designed to be an alternative to C++ or Java. Zig shares many of C's design philosophies, though I think D's syntax is a little closer to C's than Zig's is to C's. D also has a betterC mode that removes some of those "kitchen sink" features, but I couldn't say how popular it's use is. Many people who use D like some of those features. Zig's more minimalistic approach to language features is closer to C's approach. Zig likely has been influenced by D (among other languages), but I wouldn't be surprised if D's new importC functionality has been influenced by Zig. I don't use D (or C or C++) at work, but learning D and using it at home has made me a much better programmer in the languages I use for work. Maybe I would have learned those lessons with C or C++, but I guess I took more easily to D than them.

Sharlin 3y ago
> I agree with most of this, but I would say that D was probably designed to be an alternative to C++ or Java You're agreeing with me then! D was pretty explicitly created due to WalterBright's (incidentally a prolific 60k+-karma HN user!), frustration with C++ and presumably the problems that stem from its requirement to maintain almost a 100% C compatibility. Bright is the founder of Digital Mars, a small company developing C and C++ (and D) compilers, so he has first-hand experience. Since 2007 D has been co-developed by Andrei Alexandrescu, a well-known C++ expert and one of the pioneers of template metaprogramming.