4 ms·
Andrew's take is "it's ready when it's ready but we hope it's good enough before it's fully ready that you want to use it anyway". It's different and I like it
by bluecalm 5mo ago
Andrew's take is "it's ready when it's ready but we hope it's good enough before it's fully ready that you want to use it anyway".
It's different and I like it. You get one shot at it and may just as well get it right in as many areas as possible.
- nickmonad 5mo agoYep. He mentioned recently in his JetBrains interview he wants Zig to be a language for the next 50 years. Rushing 1.0 for the sake of signaling to the wider industry today would be actively harmful to that goal.
- ksec 5mo agoYes. And this kind of mentality is a near extinct in modern software development.
- mightyham 5mo agoToo bad it will not be adopted for anything serious in the next 50 years. There is no reasonable value proposition from a business standpoint for picking zig over rust. It is already the reality in much of the tech industry that Rust is filling the space previously occupied by C++. The fact that there now exists a safe low level language is legitimately a paradigm shift. It doesn't matter how many shiny cool things zig adds, being unsafe means it a technology stuck in the past.