3 ms·

> Of course, if you don’t use pos, the compiler will say that this is an error and refuse to compile as well. And if you discard that error (typically using _ =

> Of course, if you don’t use pos, the compiler will say that this is an error and refuse to compile as well. And if you discard that error (typically using _ = pos;), the compiler will complain that it should be a const. This was one of the main things that bothered me about Zig when I last tried it. This actively works against me when writing prototypes, exploratory code, and especially when writing code to learn the language. I get the rationale, that it's trying to protect me from shipping poorly designed code. But helicopter mom features do not belong in a programming language. They are just as hindering to progress as a literal one would be to a grown man, and for the exact same reasons. I know Andrew has made up his mind, but minds can be changed. So please, Andrew, please take away this helicopter mom feature.

Icathian 1y ago
This is the exact same attitude as people who threw tantrums about seatbelt laws in the 90s. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. For mostly the same reasons.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  Not using a variable is the same as flying out your car window? It's more like the cashier smacks a peanut out of your hand saying you'll get fat.
  - dmit 1y ago
    Even when compiling in Debug mode! Where the analogy is closer to a friend who's applying for a cashier job asking you to role play being a customer so they could practice, and then spitting in your face when you go "Hey, Joe! I'll take these" because "No real life customer would do that! Start over."
    - 90s_dev 1y ago
      > Even when compiling in Debug mode! closer to a friend asking you to role play being a customer so they could practice, and then spitting in your face saying "No customer would do that! Start over." Thanks for the hearty laugh :D
- lvass 1y ago
  Seatbelt laws are still wrong, government has no business protecting me from myself. But even from an utilitarian perspective, compilers do have warnings and they could just have used that.
  - 90s_dev 1y ago
    It also protects innocent bystanders from being forced to see your horrifyingly mangled body tossed on the ground in front of them in what could otherwise have either been a crash with no injuries, minimized injuries, or at least contained injuries. Do you still think that law is overstep, if so why? Genuine question, I have no horse in this race and am on the fence myself.
    - lvass 1y ago
      Because any restriction of freedom is bad in principle and acceptance of those tend to create overreaching, totalitarian states/mafias. There are valid arguments for restricting freedom from an individual to harm another, but making sure no one can see your dead body right after you happen to crash your car definitely isn't one. It is very much infeasible and an absolute helicopter mom type of concern.
  - cornstalks 1y ago
    > Seatbelt laws are still wrong, government has no business protecting me from myself. If there are multiple people in a car and some choose to wear seatbelts and some choose not to, those who are not wearing seatbelts become a danger to everyone else as their bodies become in-vehicle projectiles. Sure, I can understand the debate when it's just a single person in a car. But when a person's decision starts impacting others the debate is going to be very hard to win.
    - dullcrisp 1y ago
      Even if it’s just you, you’d be leaving your mangled corpse on a public road for other people to deal with, which is a nuisance. Like take the car crash out of the equation and imagine some cars came with an ejector switch that launches you through the windshield at 70 mph. This would not be allowed.
- lolinder 1y ago
  If we're going to go with the seatbelt comparison then we'd have to flesh it out a bit: Your new car sounds an alarm non-stop if any seat belt in the car is unfastened, whether or not a seat is occupied and whether or not the car is even on. This seems kind of silly, so you raise it with the manufacturer and they say that standard procedure is to just leave all seat belts fastened all the time. You start doing that and quickly realize that it's much harder to remember to put your seat belt on than it was in your old car, because the car doesn't warn you when you've forgotten your seat belt and when you do remember on your own you have to sit up awkwardly to unfasten it before you can get under it and fasten it around you. You point this out to some fans of the manufacturer and they act like you're the weird one for not seeing how this makes you safer.
josephg 1y ago
Urgh this frustrates me so much. The worst part is, the recommended way to avoid these compilation problems is to add: _ = my_unused_variable; to your code. Some IDE extensions even do this automatically. But if you do that, it permanently suppresses all compiler feedback that my variable is unused! Its basically the worst of all worlds: - I can't easily prototype, or test code as I go because I keep stubbing my toe on irrelevant unused variables. And these are compilation errors, not warnings. - In order to test my code, I need to go and fix all the unused variable errors (either automatically or manually). But once I've done that, they're essentially suppressed forever. Now I don't even get warnings, and I'm at risk of shipping code with unused variables. Now I need to manually scan my code, looking for times when _ = x was only added as a placeholder. Will I forget some? You bet. So I end up in a situation where its both less convenient than other languages (I have to do more work to test my code). AND I'm more likely to ship bad code - since by the time I'm done, half my unused variable warnings have been manually suppressed and I can't find out where they are. This obviously works for some people. Maybe some people never try running their code as they go. But its just horrible for me. It breaks my workflow and risks me shipping worse code. And it provides no actual benefit in return.
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  > (I have to do more work to test my code) I feel like that's already the cultural precedence in Zig. I mean, isn't their primary way of making sure your code fully and oncely frees all memory, just writing tons of tests that thoroughly exercise your function(s)?
  - josephg 1y ago
    Sure; but when I'm working on a complex problem, I'll often run (test) my code as I go, eyeballing the input and output to make sure I'm on the right track and its doing what I expect. The less time that passes between writing code and discovering a bug, the easier it is to find and fix the bug. Its also a great way to write tests - I'm more aware of edge cases when I've just written the code being tested. The problem is that zig makes it hard to run the first half of a function or block of code. I've always got variables or parameters that I simply haven't put to use yet. In an ideal world, my half-written code would fit neatly into a set of well defined functions with no unused variables. But at an experimental stage, I haven't refactored my code to make it beautiful yet. I always prefer to debug my code before refactoring it, because if my tests fail afterwards, I can isolate the bug to the refactoring process itself.
Phil_Latio 1y ago
I've never even tried Zig because of this: Since the author defends this decision, it begs the question: What else is burried in the Zig language design? I don't know and I don't want to find out.

Icathian 1y ago

This is the exact same attitude as people who threw tantrums about seatbelt laws in the 90s. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. For mostly the same reasons.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
90s_dev 1y ago
Not using a variable is the same as flying out your car window? It's more like the cashier smacks a peanut out of your hand saying you'll get fat.
- dmit 1y ago
  Even when compiling in Debug mode! Where the analogy is closer to a friend who's applying for a cashier job asking you to role play being a customer so they could practice, and then spitting in your face when you go "Hey, Joe! I'll take these" because "No real life customer would do that! Start over."
  - 90s_dev 1y ago
    > Even when compiling in Debug mode! closer to a friend asking you to role play being a customer so they could practice, and then spitting in your face saying "No customer would do that! Start over." Thanks for the hearty laugh :D
lvass 1y ago
Seatbelt laws are still wrong, government has no business protecting me from myself. But even from an utilitarian perspective, compilers do have warnings and they could just have used that.
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  It also protects innocent bystanders from being forced to see your horrifyingly mangled body tossed on the ground in front of them in what could otherwise have either been a crash with no injuries, minimized injuries, or at least contained injuries. Do you still think that law is overstep, if so why? Genuine question, I have no horse in this race and am on the fence myself.
  - lvass 1y ago
    Because any restriction of freedom is bad in principle and acceptance of those tend to create overreaching, totalitarian states/mafias. There are valid arguments for restricting freedom from an individual to harm another, but making sure no one can see your dead body right after you happen to crash your car definitely isn't one. It is very much infeasible and an absolute helicopter mom type of concern.
- cornstalks 1y ago
  > Seatbelt laws are still wrong, government has no business protecting me from myself. If there are multiple people in a car and some choose to wear seatbelts and some choose not to, those who are not wearing seatbelts become a danger to everyone else as their bodies become in-vehicle projectiles. Sure, I can understand the debate when it's just a single person in a car. But when a person's decision starts impacting others the debate is going to be very hard to win.
  - dullcrisp 1y ago
    Even if it’s just you, you’d be leaving your mangled corpse on a public road for other people to deal with, which is a nuisance. Like take the car crash out of the equation and imagine some cars came with an ejector switch that launches you through the windshield at 70 mph. This would not be allowed.
lolinder 1y ago
If we're going to go with the seatbelt comparison then we'd have to flesh it out a bit: Your new car sounds an alarm non-stop if any seat belt in the car is unfastened, whether or not a seat is occupied and whether or not the car is even on. This seems kind of silly, so you raise it with the manufacturer and they say that standard procedure is to just leave all seat belts fastened all the time. You start doing that and quickly realize that it's much harder to remember to put your seat belt on than it was in your old car, because the car doesn't warn you when you've forgotten your seat belt and when you do remember on your own you have to sit up awkwardly to unfasten it before you can get under it and fasten it around you. You point this out to some fans of the manufacturer and they act like you're the weird one for not seeing how this makes you safer.

josephg 1y ago

Urgh this frustrates me so much. The worst part is, the recommended way to avoid these compilation problems is to add: _ = my_unused_variable; to your code. Some IDE extensions even do this automatically. But if you do that, it permanently suppresses all compiler feedback that my variable is unused! Its basically the worst of all worlds: - I can't easily prototype, or test code as I go because I keep stubbing my toe on irrelevant unused variables. And these are compilation errors, not warnings. - In order to test my code, I need to go and fix all the unused variable errors (either automatically or manually). But once I've done that, they're essentially suppressed forever. Now I don't even get warnings, and I'm at risk of shipping code with unused variables. Now I need to manually scan my code, looking for times when _ = x was only added as a placeholder. Will I forget some? You bet. So I end up in a situation where its both less convenient than other languages (I have to do more work to test my code). AND I'm more likely to ship bad code - since by the time I'm done, half my unused variable warnings have been manually suppressed and I can't find out where they are. This obviously works for some people. Maybe some people never try running their code as they go. But its just horrible for me. It breaks my workflow and risks me shipping worse code. And it provides no actual benefit in return.

90s_dev 1y ago
> (I have to do more work to test my code) I feel like that's already the cultural precedence in Zig. I mean, isn't their primary way of making sure your code fully and oncely frees all memory, just writing tons of tests that thoroughly exercise your function(s)?
- josephg 1y ago
  Sure; but when I'm working on a complex problem, I'll often run (test) my code as I go, eyeballing the input and output to make sure I'm on the right track and its doing what I expect. The less time that passes between writing code and discovering a bug, the easier it is to find and fix the bug. Its also a great way to write tests - I'm more aware of edge cases when I've just written the code being tested. The problem is that zig makes it hard to run the first half of a function or block of code. I've always got variables or parameters that I simply haven't put to use yet. In an ideal world, my half-written code would fit neatly into a set of well defined functions with no unused variables. But at an experimental stage, I haven't refactored my code to make it beautiful yet. I always prefer to debug my code before refactoring it, because if my tests fail afterwards, I can isolate the bug to the refactoring process itself.

Phil_Latio 1y ago

I've never even tried Zig because of this: Since the author defends this decision, it begs the question: What else is burried in the Zig language design? I don't know and I don't want to find out.