(no title)
Ankhers | 4 years ago
I'm not saying this is the entire answer, but Drew has some issues with Zig https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15494222.
Ankhers | 4 years ago
I'm not saying this is the entire answer, but Drew has some issues with Zig https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15494222.
UncleOxidant|4 years ago
"- The string handling is braindead"
How so? Not a lot of specificity here.
"- The compiler and stdlib is immature. This seems like the first programming language the guy has written. You should have a few failures to learn from before you make a Serious Programming Language imo."
The Hare compiler isn't immature? As noted, this was 3.5 years ago.
"- Code run at compile time is a neat idea but has a weird syntax and really really complicates the internals of the compiler and related tooling."
And yet this has become one of Zig's strongest points.
lhorie|4 years ago
It strikes me as a difference in opinion wrt at which level should strings be handled (zig folks saying it should be a userspace/stdlib concern, ddevault saying it should be a core language concern). IMHO the point of contention seems to be that ddevault considers stdlib an integral part of a language, whereas zig has an ideology that aggressive support for freestanding, no-stdlib-whatsoever workflows is part of its scope.
From my understanding from the other HN thread, Hare appears to use QBE as a backend, which only targets x64 (whereas Zig says it'll continue to use LLVM for prod builds). Zig is also somewhat unique among low level languages in that it put quite a non-trivial amount of legwork on cross-compilation plumbing (e.g. the article about compiling C extensions for go via zig[0])
[0] https://dev.to/kristoff/zig-makes-go-cross-compilation-just-...
robinei|4 years ago
dralley|4 years ago