4 ms·

For me, it's the library problem. I read the guide and think, "Wow, this is really great!" Then I read the cookbook, and it mostly says that things (like databa

For me, it's the library problem. I read the guide and think, "Wow, this is really great!" Then I read the cookbook, and it mostly says that things (like database connectivity, regex, options parsing, even HTTP GET) are not quite ready for prime time, and I should just call out to C. Obviously, it takes time for a language to get there; I don't really mean this as a criticism. But I'm just not interested in wrapping C libraries while I wait for a zig version. I'd rather just write C. Or work in a language that is there with these kinds of things.

pyrolistical 2y ago
Since c abi powers the world, with zig’s ability to easily wrap c libs, not only does zig have access to all libs; it also makes it easy to integrate zig with any existing project as most programming languages have integration with c. This is why everybody says just use some existing c lib
- sramsay 2y ago
  Hmm. I could substitute lots of languages for zig in that first sentence. But that doesn't invariably lead the communities that maintain those languages to utter the second. I also doubt I have space to enumerate the languages that claim to "easily wrap c libs." None of them easily do that. That statement imagines that there's some basic consistency between APIs (and that those APIs are asking for and returning fairly simple types).
  - lukaslalinsky 2y ago
    The thing is, all valid C types are also valid in Zig. You just `@cImport` the header file and use it. You don't need to wrap the API, you just use it.
  - pyrolistical 2y ago
    I would argue zig had the best c integration. This is why it’s different.
    - sramsay 2y ago
      Better than C++? Better than Lua?
      - throwawaymaths 2y ago
        arguably Zig's c integration is better than c's c integration.
        sramsay 2y ago
        How so? (If you're hearing a combative tone, it's unintended; I'm asking seriously, because I would love for this to be true!)
        rc00 2y ago
        In C, C imports are in the global namespace. The language is also compiled sequentially, so often, time is spent ensuring headers are included in the proper order, hopefully avoiding a cyclic dependency. In Zig, C imports are done in a struct with a local namespace or imported package definition and the ordering is not relevant to compilation. I think parent means that Zig is a better language with regards to being the target for C to be imported into than C and that is the benefit of being a more modern language with flexibility following more modern conventions. This is combined with the mostly seamless ability to utilize most C functions and types without too much strife.
        throwawaymaths 2y ago
        ease of cross compilation as well.
        throwawaymaths 2y ago
        no combative tone detected. for example if two c libs declare a function with the same name youre not gonna have a good time using them both from c. I believe that's not a problem in zig.

pyrolistical 2y ago

Since c abi powers the world, with zig’s ability to easily wrap c libs, not only does zig have access to all libs; it also makes it easy to integrate zig with any existing project as most programming languages have integration with c. This is why everybody says just use some existing c lib

sramsay 2y ago
Hmm. I could substitute lots of languages for zig in that first sentence. But that doesn't invariably lead the communities that maintain those languages to utter the second. I also doubt I have space to enumerate the languages that claim to "easily wrap c libs." None of them easily do that. That statement imagines that there's some basic consistency between APIs (and that those APIs are asking for and returning fairly simple types).
- lukaslalinsky 2y ago
  The thing is, all valid C types are also valid in Zig. You just `@cImport` the header file and use it. You don't need to wrap the API, you just use it.
- pyrolistical 2y ago
  I would argue zig had the best c integration. This is why it’s different.
  - sramsay 2y ago
    Better than C++? Better than Lua?
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
      arguably Zig's c integration is better than c's c integration.
      - sramsay 2y ago
        How so? (If you're hearing a combative tone, it's unintended; I'm asking seriously, because I would love for this to be true!)
        rc00 2y ago
        In C, C imports are in the global namespace. The language is also compiled sequentially, so often, time is spent ensuring headers are included in the proper order, hopefully avoiding a cyclic dependency. In Zig, C imports are done in a struct with a local namespace or imported package definition and the ordering is not relevant to compilation. I think parent means that Zig is a better language with regards to being the target for C to be imported into than C and that is the benefit of being a more modern language with flexibility following more modern conventions. This is combined with the mostly seamless ability to utilize most C functions and types without too much strife.
        throwawaymaths 2y ago
        ease of cross compilation as well.
        throwawaymaths 2y ago
        no combative tone detected. for example if two c libs declare a function with the same name youre not gonna have a good time using them both from c. I believe that's not a problem in zig.