←back to thread

Things Zig comptime won't do

(matklad.github.io)
458 points JadedBlueEyes | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
no_wizard ◴[] 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 #
ksec ◴[] No.43745418[source]
>but I’d love the best of both worlds if it were possible

I am just going to quote what pcwalton said the other day that perhaps answer your question.

>> I’d be much more excited about that promise [memory safety in Rust] if the compiler provided that safety, rather than asking the programmer to do an extraordinary amount of extra work to conform to syntactically enforced safety rules. Put the complexity in the compiler, dudes.

> That exists; it's called garbage collection.

>If you don't want the performance characteristics of garbage collection, something has to give. Either you sacrifice memory safety or you accept a more restrictive paradigm than GC'd languages give you. For some reason, programming language enthusiasts think that if you think really hard, every issue has some solution out there without any drawbacks at all just waiting to be found. But in fact, creating a system that has zero runtime overhead and unlimited aliasing with a mutable heap is as impossible as finding two even numbers whose sum is odd.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43726315

replies(4): >>43745462 #>>43745760 #>>43745791 #>>43746930 #
the__alchemist ◴[] No.43745760[source]
Maybe this is a bad place to ask, but: Those experienced in manual-memory langs: What in particular do you find cumbersome about the borrow system? I've hit some annoyances like when splitting up struct fields into params where more than one is mutable, but that's the only friction point that comes to mind.

I ask because I am obvious blind to other cases - that's what I'm curious about! I generally find the &s to be a net help even without mem safety ... They make it easier to reason about structure, and when things mutate.

replies(4): >>43745891 #>>43745963 #>>43746263 #>>43747347 #
1. dzaima ◴[] No.43747347{4}[source]
I imagine a large part is just how one is used to doing stuff. Not being forced to be explicit about mutability and lifetimes allows a bunch of neat stuff that does not translate well to Rust, even if the desired thing in question might not be hard to do in another way. (but that other way might involve more copies / indirections, which users of manually-memory langs would (perhaps rightfully, perhaps pointlessly) desire to avoid if possible, but Rust users might just be comfortable with)

This separation is also why it is basically impossible to make apples-to-apples comparisons between languages.

Messy things I've hit (from ~5KLoC of Rust; I'm a Rust beginner, I primarily do C) are: cyclical references; a large structure that needs efficient single-threaded mutation while referenced from multiple places (i.e. must use some form of cell) at first, but needs to be sharable multithreaded after all the mutating is done; self-referential structures are roughly impossible to move around (namely, an object holding &-s to objects allocated by a bump allocator, movable around as a pair, but that's not a thing (without libraries that I couldn't figure out at least)); and refactoring mutability/lifetimes is also rather messy.