4 ms·

> It just means that importing C libraries will be a build step, and not something you write directly into the relevant source code. This is not a big deal. It

> It just means that importing C libraries will be a build step, and not something you write directly into the relevant source code. This is not a big deal. It 100% is a big deal. I explained this in another comment [0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111445

throwawaymaths 2y ago
I think you are operating from a mistaken understanding, as responded to in the linked comment.
- jay-barronville 2y ago
  > I think you are operating from a mistaken understanding, as responded to in the linked comment. No, I’m not. Respectfully, you’re responding to my point while admitting in your comment [0] that you don’t actually know. If you read the relevant discussions, the conclusion, last time I checked, was that there’s going to be a build system requirement. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111542
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    I "don't know" because zig 0.14 is not released yet and anything could happen but I DO know that imports do not currently require the build system. And I THINK that's because the core parts of the build system (including binding imports) are dependent on the command line anyways. So I am ASSUMING that property will be invariant when the c @import gets implemented, and my "don't know" is merely being explicit about that assumption. You are the one coming from a place of ignorance here, and your refusal to acknowledge that you might be wrong makes me suspect your argument is not being made in good faith.
    - jay-barronville 2y ago
      > You are the one coming from a place of ignorance here, and your refusal to acknowledge that you might be wrong makes me suspect your argument is not being made in good faith. You’re making a lot of “assumptions” when you could just read the GitHub issue regarding this change, written by Andrew himself, titled “move @cImport to the build system” [0]. By the way, please note that I not only write Zig code almost daily, I’ve personally contributed to the Zig build system. [0]: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/20630 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/20630
      - throwawaymaths 2y ago
        Andrew responded in that thread to some more recent comments and made it clear that it will be possible to do all the things from the client without build.zig, (apparently not in one command though)
- TwentyPosts 2y ago
  Andrew (in the linked Github page) answered a question as follows: > Question: "So after this change, is there way I can still simply call zig run or do I have to use a build.zig file?" Andrew's answer: "No, this use case will regress." This in fact literally states that "just" calling "zig run" won't be possible anymore, and heavily implies you'll need a build.zig file.
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    After some more recent comments, > This in fact literally states that "just" calling "zig run" won't be possible anymore, This seems correct. > and heavily implies you'll need a build.zig file. This seems to not be the case.
samatman 2y ago
We have different ideas of what a big deal is, clearly. The idea that C programmers, C programmers, are going to start bailing en masse out of the top of the Zig funnel, because they have to copy-paste a build.zig gist to get started? This is risible. The complexity has moved to a slightly different place. That's it.
- jay-barronville 2y ago
  > The idea that C programmers, C programmers, are going to start bailing en masse out of the top of the Zig funnel, because they have to copy-paste a build.zig gist to get started? This is risible. What I find incredible about these takes is that they’re so removed from reality. It’s quite unfortunate how difficult it is to get a lot of programmers to evaluate things from the shoes of others. I have firsthand experience trying to get fellow C programmers to try Zig (and Rust too), and it’s already extremely difficult as is. The three things that have helped me sell Zig has been the combination of (1) how easy it is to get up and running with it (no prerequisites or installs necessary) [0], (2) the C interop story (which was a selling point for me [1]), and (3) the very simple yet impressive and complete build process [0]. What’s interesting is that you call my point risible when, based on your response, it’s clear to me you don’t understand the audience we’re talking about. For example, you say: > […] because they have to copy-paste a build.zig gist to get started […] Professional C programmers generally favor actually understanding what’s happening under the hood, so unlike, e.g., JavaScript or Python developers, suggesting they get started by copying and pasting build code they don’t understand is a nonstarter for a lot of C programmers. And understanding Zig’s build system doesn’t happen as quickly [1] as being able to use Zig directly. Even after writing a decent amount of Zig build code, I’ve had to, on a number of occasions, go read the Zig build system code to understand how something is implemented (e.g., how it deals with certain paths, peculiarities of the dependency system, caching semantics, etc.)—if I had to figure out the build system before I was able to get started with Zig and be productive, I would’ve never taken it seriously. There’s a reason why Zig has been marketed as a compiler that can also serve as a drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang. What you’re effectively saying is that this main selling point doesn’t matter even though that’s been one of the main things that makes Zig attractive to C programmers. Incredible. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111445 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41107515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41107515

throwawaymaths 2y ago

I think you are operating from a mistaken understanding, as responded to in the linked comment.

jay-barronville 2y ago
> I think you are operating from a mistaken understanding, as responded to in the linked comment. No, I’m not. Respectfully, you’re responding to my point while admitting in your comment [0] that you don’t actually know. If you read the relevant discussions, the conclusion, last time I checked, was that there’s going to be a build system requirement. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111542
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  I "don't know" because zig 0.14 is not released yet and anything could happen but I DO know that imports do not currently require the build system. And I THINK that's because the core parts of the build system (including binding imports) are dependent on the command line anyways. So I am ASSUMING that property will be invariant when the c @import gets implemented, and my "don't know" is merely being explicit about that assumption. You are the one coming from a place of ignorance here, and your refusal to acknowledge that you might be wrong makes me suspect your argument is not being made in good faith.
  - jay-barronville 2y ago
    > You are the one coming from a place of ignorance here, and your refusal to acknowledge that you might be wrong makes me suspect your argument is not being made in good faith. You’re making a lot of “assumptions” when you could just read the GitHub issue regarding this change, written by Andrew himself, titled “move @cImport to the build system” [0]. By the way, please note that I not only write Zig code almost daily, I’ve personally contributed to the Zig build system. [0]: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/20630 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/20630
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
      Andrew responded in that thread to some more recent comments and made it clear that it will be possible to do all the things from the client without build.zig, (apparently not in one command though)
TwentyPosts 2y ago
Andrew (in the linked Github page) answered a question as follows: > Question: "So after this change, is there way I can still simply call zig run or do I have to use a build.zig file?" Andrew's answer: "No, this use case will regress." This in fact literally states that "just" calling "zig run" won't be possible anymore, and heavily implies you'll need a build.zig file.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  After some more recent comments, > This in fact literally states that "just" calling "zig run" won't be possible anymore, This seems correct. > and heavily implies you'll need a build.zig file. This seems to not be the case.

samatman 2y ago

We have different ideas of what a big deal is, clearly. The idea that C programmers, C programmers, are going to start bailing en masse out of the top of the Zig funnel, because they have to copy-paste a build.zig gist to get started? This is risible. The complexity has moved to a slightly different place. That's it.

jay-barronville 2y ago
> The idea that C programmers, C programmers, are going to start bailing en masse out of the top of the Zig funnel, because they have to copy-paste a build.zig gist to get started? This is risible. What I find incredible about these takes is that they’re so removed from reality. It’s quite unfortunate how difficult it is to get a lot of programmers to evaluate things from the shoes of others. I have firsthand experience trying to get fellow C programmers to try Zig (and Rust too), and it’s already extremely difficult as is. The three things that have helped me sell Zig has been the combination of (1) how easy it is to get up and running with it (no prerequisites or installs necessary) [0], (2) the C interop story (which was a selling point for me [1]), and (3) the very simple yet impressive and complete build process [0]. What’s interesting is that you call my point risible when, based on your response, it’s clear to me you don’t understand the audience we’re talking about. For example, you say: > […] because they have to copy-paste a build.zig gist to get started […] Professional C programmers generally favor actually understanding what’s happening under the hood, so unlike, e.g., JavaScript or Python developers, suggesting they get started by copying and pasting build code they don’t understand is a nonstarter for a lot of C programmers. And understanding Zig’s build system doesn’t happen as quickly [1] as being able to use Zig directly. Even after writing a decent amount of Zig build code, I’ve had to, on a number of occasions, go read the Zig build system code to understand how something is implemented (e.g., how it deals with certain paths, peculiarities of the dependency system, caching semantics, etc.)—if I had to figure out the build system before I was able to get started with Zig and be productive, I would’ve never taken it seriously. There’s a reason why Zig has been marketed as a compiler that can also serve as a drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang. What you’re effectively saying is that this main selling point doesn’t matter even though that’s been one of the main things that makes Zig attractive to C programmers. Incredible. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111445 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41107515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41107515