3 ms·
Zig's been around for ~10 years. It's more low-level and lightweight than Rust. Different goals, different trade-offs. If Rust is the new C++, Zig is the new C.
by agluszak 4mo ago
Zig's been around for ~10 years. It's more low-level and lightweight than Rust. Different goals, different trade-offs. If Rust is the new C++, Zig is the new C.
- c0rruptbytes 4mo ago> If Rust is the new C++, Zig is the new C. thank you, this helps!
- donpdonp 4mo agoI used to think Zig was the new C, but its different enough to be its own category, imho. For an actually "new" C, try https://c3-lang.org/ https://c3-lang.org/.
- Ygg2 4mo agoStill no 1.0 version though. So technically it's year 0.
- peesem 4mo ago"technically" usually means something like "strictly", not "by a completely different metric". work takes time. zig has had a decade of work put into it.
- Ygg2 4mo agoTechnically means according to a strict, often legal definition. The strict definition being we don't count developments that happened before version 1. Like when we talk about Rust, we don't mention the virtual threads or GC or the @ symbol for GC references. Even though those all happened during its development.
- peesem 4mo agoand when people talk about zig, they don't usually mention that zig used to have goto, casting syntax like `T(val)`, a rule that said you couldn't pass containers by value, language-level async, some truly awful syntax for what is now `try` and other operators, etc. both languages took time and work to realize that these features were not for them. very strange to deny that. also, nitpick: they said zig has been around for ten years. this is, strictly, correct. the zig project has existed for ten years, just like how rust has existed for about 20, now. a project still exists if it is pre-1.0. nobody was talking about versions before you.