4 ms·

Zig is divorcing itself from Clang: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270

sitkack 2y ago
Zig is and will be shipping clang for a great long while. Not only will it be shipping clang so you can build other code with it, they aren't removing LLVM support. https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-2058934250 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-205...
- kbolino 2y ago
  I raise you https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/20875 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/20875 It is not entirely clear what any of this means for the future, and in any case, it keeps changing all the time. The promise to maintain LLVM support just applies to Zig code. That doesn't require Clang. LLVM alone is not a C compiler, and neither is Zig without Clang. What very well may happen is that the "standard" distribution of Zig will continue to bundle Clang, while a "minimal" distribution also gets created which omits Clang, and thus cannot compile C code. However, none of this has been spelled out clearly yet, and so I think it's reasonable to say don't depend on Zig to give you Clang.
  - sitkack 2y ago
    Zig is migrating away from LLVM as the mandatory backend, it will still ship clang and llvm so that it can build everything it needs which is critical for its mission for all your (code) base.
kristoff_it 2y ago
Which doesn't mean what you're implying it means: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-1615388680 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-161...
- kbolino 2y ago
  I think it does. If you want Clang, install Clang.
  - stevenhuang 2y ago
    More info https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-1616115039 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-161...
    - kbolino 2y ago
      You're the second person to post a link to a comment that's prominently highlighted on the issue I already linked. Yes, I've read that; nowhere do I see a statement like "Zig will always ship Clang with it" and instead I see a number of statements that imply it won't. I'm not even saying that getting Clang out of Zig is a bad thing. It's not like CMake or Rust come bundled with a C compiler.
      - stevenhuang 2y ago
        I suggest you read it again then, because it heavily implies that. > These use cases can still be satisfied by, again, an independently maintained project that combines Clang main() and Zig main() together. For users of these CLI tools, I don't expect there to be any difference in user experience. Means when someone installs ziglang from their package manager, it will be able to build c.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        kbolino 2y ago
        Yeah, I've read it multiple times. Every time, it says to me "somebody somewhere else can package these things together, it just won't be Zig". There must be something about Andrew Kelley's communication style that clicks with other people but not me. But I just can't read into it what you say is there. Since this all boils down to interpreting one somewhat arrogant man's words, it ceases to be a technical discussion and just becomes an argument in semantic parsing. I'm just not going to comment much on Zig anymore as clearly other people know what's going on and I keep getting it wrong.

sitkack 2y ago

Zig is and will be shipping clang for a great long while. Not only will it be shipping clang so you can build other code with it, they aren't removing LLVM support. https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-2058934250 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-205...

kbolino 2y ago
I raise you https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/20875 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/20875 It is not entirely clear what any of this means for the future, and in any case, it keeps changing all the time. The promise to maintain LLVM support just applies to Zig code. That doesn't require Clang. LLVM alone is not a C compiler, and neither is Zig without Clang. What very well may happen is that the "standard" distribution of Zig will continue to bundle Clang, while a "minimal" distribution also gets created which omits Clang, and thus cannot compile C code. However, none of this has been spelled out clearly yet, and so I think it's reasonable to say don't depend on Zig to give you Clang.
- sitkack 2y ago
  Zig is migrating away from LLVM as the mandatory backend, it will still ship clang and llvm so that it can build everything it needs which is critical for its mission for all your (code) base.

kristoff_it 2y ago

Which doesn't mean what you're implying it means: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-1615388680 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-161...

kbolino 2y ago
I think it does. If you want Clang, install Clang.
- stevenhuang 2y ago
  More info https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-1616115039 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270#issuecomment-161...
  - kbolino 2y ago
    You're the second person to post a link to a comment that's prominently highlighted on the issue I already linked. Yes, I've read that; nowhere do I see a statement like "Zig will always ship Clang with it" and instead I see a number of statements that imply it won't. I'm not even saying that getting Clang out of Zig is a bad thing. It's not like CMake or Rust come bundled with a C compiler.
    - stevenhuang 2y ago
      I suggest you read it again then, because it heavily implies that. > These use cases can still be satisfied by, again, an independently maintained project that combines Clang main() and Zig main() together. For users of these CLI tools, I don't expect there to be any difference in user experience. Means when someone installs ziglang from their package manager, it will be able to build c.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - kbolino 2y ago
        Yeah, I've read it multiple times. Every time, it says to me "somebody somewhere else can package these things together, it just won't be Zig". There must be something about Andrew Kelley's communication style that clicks with other people but not me. But I just can't read into it what you say is there. Since this all boils down to interpreting one somewhat arrogant man's words, it ceases to be a technical discussion and just becomes an argument in semantic parsing. I'm just not going to comment much on Zig anymore as clearly other people know what's going on and I keep getting it wrong.