←back to thread

Things Zig comptime won't do

(matklad.github.io)
458 points JadedBlueEyes | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pron ◴[] No.43745438[source]
Yes!

To me, the uniqueness of Zig's comptime is a combination of two things:

1. comtpime replaces many other features that would be specialised in other languages with or without rich compile-time (or runtime) metaprogramming, and

2. comptime is referentially transparent [1], that makes it strictly "weaker" than AST macros, but simpler to understand; what's surprising is just how capable you can be with a comptime mechanism with access to introspection yet without the referentially opaque power of macros.

These two give Zig a unique combination of simplicity and power. We're used to seeing things like that in Scheme and other Lisps, but the approach in Zig is very different. The outcome isn't as general as in Lisp, but it's powerful enough while keeping code easier to understand.

You can like it or not, but it is very interesting and very novel (the novelty isn't in the feature itself, but in the place it has in the language). Languages with a novel design and approach that you can learn in a couple of days are quite rare.

[1]: In short, this means that you get no access to names or expressions, only the values they yield.

replies(7): >>43745704 #>>43745928 #>>43746682 #>>43747113 #>>43747250 #>>43749014 #>>43749546 #
WalterBright ◴[] No.43747250[source]
It's not novel. D pioneered compile time function execution (CTFE) back around 2007. The idea has since been adopted in many other languages, like C++.

One thing it is used for is generating string literals, which then can be fed to the compiler. This takes the place of macros.

CTFE is one of D's most popular and loved features.

replies(5): >>43747836 #>>43747875 #>>43749766 #>>43750357 #>>43751134 #
1. throwawaymaths ◴[] No.43750357[source]
You're missing the point. If anything D is littered with features and feature bloat (CTFE included). Zig (as the author of the blog mentions) is more than somewhat defined by what it can't do.
replies(1): >>43754253 #
2. WalterBright ◴[] No.43754253[source]
I fully agree that the difference is a matter of taste.

All living languages accrete features over time. D started out as a much more modest language. It originally eschewed templates and operator overloading, for example.

Some features were abandoned, too, like complex numbers and the "bit" data type.