←back to thread

Things Zig comptime won't do

(matklad.github.io)
458 points JadedBlueEyes | 2 comments | 20 Apr 25 15:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.408s | source
Show context
no_wizard ◴[20 Apr 25 16:53 UTC] No.43744932[source]▶
I like the Zig language and tooling. I do wish there was a safety mode that give the same guarantees as Rust, but it’s a huge step above C/C++. I am also extremely impressed with the Zig compiler.

Perhaps the safety is the tradeoff with the comparative ease of using the language compared to Rust, but I’d love the best of both worlds if it were possible

replies(5): >>43744960 #>>43745201 #>>43745418 #>>43745573 #>>43749228 #
xedrac ◴[20 Apr 25 17:38 UTC] No.43745201[source]▶
I like Zig as a replacement for C, but not C++ due to its lack of RAII. Rust on the other hand is a great replacement for C++. I see Zig as filling a small niche where allocation failures are paramount - very constrained embedded devices, etc... Otherwise, I think you just get a lot more with Rust.
replies(2): >>43745255 #>>43745507 #
1. xmorse ◴[20 Apr 25 17:47 UTC] No.43745255[source]▶
Even better than RAII would be linear types, but it would require a borrow checker to track the lifetimes of objects. Then you would get a compiler error if you forget to call a .destroy() method
replies(1): >>43745597 #
2. throwawaymaths ◴[20 Apr 25 18:37 UTC] No.43745597[source]▶
no you just need analysis with a dependent type system (which linear types are a subset of). it doesn't have to be in the compiler. there was a proof of concept here a few months ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42923829

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43199265