4 ms·

Zig community really tries to match Rust one in terms of cult resemblance.

by wolvesechoes 11mo ago

IshKebab 11mo ago
Did it occur to you that Rust and Zig might actually be very good?
- wolvesechoes 11mo ago
  Oh, they are. Like a multitude of other languages.
  - IshKebab 11mo ago
    There aren't a multitude of other languages that compete with Rust and Zig in the "zero cost abstraction" domain. There's like, Ada... and D sort of. Rust and Zig aren't merely very good, they are better than the alternatives when you need a "zero cost abstraction" option. But sure, go ahead and dismiss it as a cult if it makes you feel better. I bet you were one of the people who dismissed the iPhone as "just apple fanbois" back in the day. Won't amount to anything.
    - wolvesechoes 11mo ago
      But the concern in this thread wasn't that people consider Zig or Rust good, so don't try to frame it this way, because it is dishonest. Original quote: > [Learning Zig] is about fundamentally changing how you think about software. This is not the same. Something like it could be said about Lisp, Forth, Prolog, Smalltalk, Fractran or APL, even Brainfuck, not Rust or Zig. No, thinking about object lifetimes or allocators is not "fundamental change" in how to think about software. It is bread and butter of thinking about software. Therefore I believe this is cultish behavior - you assign extraordinary properties to something rather dull and not that much different from other mainstream languages. > I bet you were one of the people who dismissed the iPhone as "just apple fanbois" back in the day Wrong. I still dismiss people praising Apple, swallowing some bullshit about "vision" etc. as fanboys.
hnarn 11mo ago
People that consider other people that are excited about something "culty" are usually people that themselves are excited by absolutely nothing.
- goku12 11mo ago
  That's a very profound statement! Logical and sounds intelligent. Nice one! PS: I'm stealing it, by the way.
- wolvesechoes 11mo ago
  Nicely formulated, yet not less empty than the picture you try to sketch.

Zig community really tries to match Rust one in terms of cult resemblance.

IshKebab 11mo ago

Did it occur to you that Rust and Zig might actually be very good?

wolvesechoes 11mo ago
Oh, they are. Like a multitude of other languages.
- IshKebab 11mo ago
  There aren't a multitude of other languages that compete with Rust and Zig in the "zero cost abstraction" domain. There's like, Ada... and D sort of. Rust and Zig aren't merely very good, they are better than the alternatives when you need a "zero cost abstraction" option. But sure, go ahead and dismiss it as a cult if it makes you feel better. I bet you were one of the people who dismissed the iPhone as "just apple fanbois" back in the day. Won't amount to anything.
  - wolvesechoes 11mo ago
    But the concern in this thread wasn't that people consider Zig or Rust good, so don't try to frame it this way, because it is dishonest. Original quote: > [Learning Zig] is about fundamentally changing how you think about software. This is not the same. Something like it could be said about Lisp, Forth, Prolog, Smalltalk, Fractran or APL, even Brainfuck, not Rust or Zig. No, thinking about object lifetimes or allocators is not "fundamental change" in how to think about software. It is bread and butter of thinking about software. Therefore I believe this is cultish behavior - you assign extraordinary properties to something rather dull and not that much different from other mainstream languages. > I bet you were one of the people who dismissed the iPhone as "just apple fanbois" back in the day Wrong. I still dismiss people praising Apple, swallowing some bullshit about "vision" etc. as fanboys.

hnarn 11mo ago

People that consider other people that are excited about something "culty" are usually people that themselves are excited by absolutely nothing.

goku12 11mo ago
That's a very profound statement! Logical and sounds intelligent. Nice one! PS: I'm stealing it, by the way.
wolvesechoes 11mo ago
Nicely formulated, yet not less empty than the picture you try to sketch.