5 ms·

One reason I took interest in Idris (and lately Roc, although it's even less mature) is the promise of a functional but usable to solve problems today language

One reason I took interest in Idris (and lately Roc, although it's even less mature) is the promise of a functional but usable to solve problems today language with all the latest thinking on writing good code baked-in already, compiling to a single binary (something I always envied about Go, although unfortunately it's Go). There simply isn't a lot there yet in the space of "pure functional language with only immutable values and compile time type checking that builds a single fast binary (and has some neat developer-friendly features/ideas such as dependent types, Roc's "tags" or pattern-matching with destructuring)" (this rules out OCaml, for example, despite it being mature). You get a lot of that, but not all of it, with other options (OCaml, Elixir/Erlang, Haskell... but those 3 offer a far larger library of ready-to-import software at this point). Haskell did manage to teach everyone who cares about these things that managing side-effects and keeping track of "purity" is important. But it's frankly still early-days and we're still far from nirvana; Rust is starting to show some warts (despite still being a massive improvement over C from a safety perspective), and people are looking around for what's next. One barely-touched thing is that there are compiler optimizations made possible by pure functional/pure immutable languages (such as caching a guaranteed result of an operation where those guarantees simply can't be given elsewhere) that have simply been impossible until now. (Roc is trying to go there, from what I can tell, and I'm here for it! Presumably, Rust has already, as long as you stick with its functional constructs, which I hear is hard sometimes)

staunton 2y ago
> Rust is starting to show some warts (despite still being a massive improvement over C from a safety perspective) The way it seems to me is that actually Rust aims to be an improvement over C++ rather than C. (And Zig aims to be an improvement over C rather than C++.) The major downsides of both will be the same as their reference point: Rust will eventually be too complicated for anyone to understand while still not being really safe (and the complexity then comes back to bite you one more time). Zig will be easy to understand and use but too unsafe to use for important applications (at least once people start really caring about software in important applications). Both of these will be fairly niche because compiling to a single binary just isn't as important, as elegant as it might be.
- samatman 2y ago
  > Zig will be easy to understand and use but too unsafe to use for important applications This is an outside perspective on Zig, and I have to say, not an informed one. If you'd like to understand Zig (and what I mean) better, this video is a good start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3WYdYyjek4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3WYdYyjek4 Zig is, right now, being used for high-assurance systems where correctness is a terminal value, and it provides many tools and affordances to assist in doing so. It isn't a good choice for projects which give lip-service to correctness, but for ones which actually mean it, and are willing and able to put in the effort and expense to achieve it, it's an excellent choice. I'm willing to gloss that domain as "important applications", but perhaps you meant something different by that term.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - staunton 2y ago
    > Zig is, right now, being used for high-assurance systems I'm not convinced this is telling us very much. I was talking about software that, e.g., causes deaths when it fails. But regardless of what level of assurance one looks at, most "high assurance" systems continue to be built using C. The very few that use Zig surely chose it primarily due to compatibility with C, with the hope that it's safer than C (a low bar). Maybe in some cases also a wish to play around with new toys played a role in the decision, though in "important applicatios" I'd like to hope that's rare. In the end, we'd have to look at harm done due to bugs. For C, I'd say the record is abysmal. For Zig, it's way to early to look at this. My judgement above is mostly based on Zig not making it at all hard to violate memory safety and the analogy with C. Needless to say, Zig is better than C in this respect and that's a good thing. If your argument is something like "memory safety doesn't really matter, even for critical applications", we'll just not agree on this.
    - ArtixFox 2y ago
      I think you are wrong in a funny way. Memory safety and memory leaks and stuff dont always matter. This sparked and interesting memory for me. I was once working with a customer who was producing on-board software for a missile. In my analysis of the code, I pointed out that they had a number of problems with storage leaks. Imagine my surprise when the customers chief software engineer said "Of course it leaks". He went on to point out that they had calculated the amount of memory the application would leak in the total possible flight time for the missile and then doubled that number. They added this much additional memory to the hardware to "support" the leaks. Since the missile will explode when it hits it's target or at the end of it's flight, the ultimate in garbage collection is performed without programmer intervention. https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.ada/c/E9bNCvDQ12k/m/1tezW24ZxdAJ https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.ada/c/E9bNCvDQ12k/m/1t... while a funny example, you are very wrong. High assurance systems have a specification and a bazillion tests because memory safety is an insanely tiny problem in the sea of problems they face. [that is why, frama-C and friends are preferred over Rust,Ada, ATS, and whatever else that exists.] Correctness of the spec and perfectly following the spec is far more important. Zig allows correct code to feel easier to write when compared to C. Thats why it was chosen in tigerbeetle and thats why, if the community wants, it will have an insanely bright future in high assurance systems.

staunton 2y ago

> Rust is starting to show some warts (despite still being a massive improvement over C from a safety perspective) The way it seems to me is that actually Rust aims to be an improvement over C++ rather than C. (And Zig aims to be an improvement over C rather than C++.) The major downsides of both will be the same as their reference point: Rust will eventually be too complicated for anyone to understand while still not being really safe (and the complexity then comes back to bite you one more time). Zig will be easy to understand and use but too unsafe to use for important applications (at least once people start really caring about software in important applications). Both of these will be fairly niche because compiling to a single binary just isn't as important, as elegant as it might be.

samatman 2y ago
> Zig will be easy to understand and use but too unsafe to use for important applications This is an outside perspective on Zig, and I have to say, not an informed one. If you'd like to understand Zig (and what I mean) better, this video is a good start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3WYdYyjek4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3WYdYyjek4 Zig is, right now, being used for high-assurance systems where correctness is a terminal value, and it provides many tools and affordances to assist in doing so. It isn't a good choice for projects which give lip-service to correctness, but for ones which actually mean it, and are willing and able to put in the effort and expense to achieve it, it's an excellent choice. I'm willing to gloss that domain as "important applications", but perhaps you meant something different by that term.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- staunton 2y ago
  > Zig is, right now, being used for high-assurance systems I'm not convinced this is telling us very much. I was talking about software that, e.g., causes deaths when it fails. But regardless of what level of assurance one looks at, most "high assurance" systems continue to be built using C. The very few that use Zig surely chose it primarily due to compatibility with C, with the hope that it's safer than C (a low bar). Maybe in some cases also a wish to play around with new toys played a role in the decision, though in "important applicatios" I'd like to hope that's rare. In the end, we'd have to look at harm done due to bugs. For C, I'd say the record is abysmal. For Zig, it's way to early to look at this. My judgement above is mostly based on Zig not making it at all hard to violate memory safety and the analogy with C. Needless to say, Zig is better than C in this respect and that's a good thing. If your argument is something like "memory safety doesn't really matter, even for critical applications", we'll just not agree on this.
  - ArtixFox 2y ago
    I think you are wrong in a funny way. Memory safety and memory leaks and stuff dont always matter. This sparked and interesting memory for me. I was once working with a customer who was producing on-board software for a missile. In my analysis of the code, I pointed out that they had a number of problems with storage leaks. Imagine my surprise when the customers chief software engineer said "Of course it leaks". He went on to point out that they had calculated the amount of memory the application would leak in the total possible flight time for the missile and then doubled that number. They added this much additional memory to the hardware to "support" the leaks. Since the missile will explode when it hits it's target or at the end of it's flight, the ultimate in garbage collection is performed without programmer intervention. https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.ada/c/E9bNCvDQ12k/m/1tezW24ZxdAJ https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.ada/c/E9bNCvDQ12k/m/1t... while a funny example, you are very wrong. High assurance systems have a specification and a bazillion tests because memory safety is an insanely tiny problem in the sea of problems they face. [that is why, frama-C and friends are preferred over Rust,Ada, ATS, and whatever else that exists.] Correctness of the spec and perfectly following the spec is far more important. Zig allows correct code to feel easier to write when compared to C. Thats why it was chosen in tigerbeetle and thats why, if the community wants, it will have an insanely bright future in high assurance systems.