3 ms·
> It's caused a lot of trouble so far and for what? The "for what" seems pretty obvious, no? It's the same reason you would use Rust over C in any other projec
by thinkharderdev 2y ago
> It's caused a lot of trouble so far and for what?
The "for what" seems pretty obvious, no? It's the same reason you would use Rust over C in any other project. Memory safety and more modern PL features.
- superfist 2y agoIn my opinion, in the case of the Linux kernel, Zig (once it reaches 1.0) would be a much better, more natural, and less painful choice than Rust.
- capitol_ 2y agoLets hope that zig becomes a memory-safe language before 1.0 then.
- mrklol 2y agoLike stated, zig isn’t stable yet. And in general the kit isn’t on a good level yet to replace C in Linux. And, there’s still no good and fast allocator: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/12484 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/12484
- flohofwoe 2y agoKernel code shouldn't need a 'good and fast' allocator though, since preferably it shouldn't heap-allocate in the first place, or at least not frequent enough that allocator performance matters.
- mrklol 2y agoYou’re correct - was just something which is stopping people to try the language. And with that you implicate less users, less matured toolkit etc.
- rowanG077 2y agoIs there even a plan to make zig memory safe?
- bobajeff 2y agoAs someone who's tried zig and who enjoys c. I highly doubt it would be any more acceptable for people dedicated to working on c than rust or c++ is.