3 ms·
IMHO the Zig stdlib (including the build system) by far isn't as elegantly designed as the language. There's more trial-and-error and adhoc-solutions going on i
by flohofwoe 2y ago
IMHO the Zig stdlib (including the build system) by far isn't as elegantly designed as the language. There's more trial-and-error and adhoc-solutions going on in the stdlib and there are also obvious gaps and inconsistencies where the stdlib still tries to find its "style".
I think that can be expected of a pre-1.0 language ecosystem though. Currently it's more important to get the language right first and then worry about cleaning up the stdlib APIs.
- klabb3 2y agoAll languages have these problems. Even Go with famously excellent std has many rough spots that either were not available (such as context) or was just a bit poorly designed. The most important job of std is not (contrary to popular belief) to provide a “bag of useful high quality things” but rather providing interfaces and types that 3p packages can use without coordinating with each other. I’d argue that http.Handler, io.Reader/Writer/Closer are providing the most value and they are just single method signatures. When there’s universal agreement of what shape different common “things” have, it unlocks interop which just turbo charges the whole ecosystem. Some of those are language, but a lot more is std and that’s why I always rant about people over focusing on languages.
- flohofwoe 2y agoAlso tbf, even in its current state the Zig stdlib is already infinitely more useful than the C stdlib and even the C++ stdlib.
- flykespice 2y agoAnd will they ever do a revamp on the stdlib API or will stick with it because of backward compatibility concerns just like C/C++ does?
- throwawaymaths 2y agoThey already have had several cleanup-quakes in the stdlib.
- kristoff_it 2y agoZig is a 0.x language for a reason, and that reason is to not have to offer any kind of backward compatibility until main development is complete.