3 ms·
In 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.
by superfist 2y ago
In 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.