Things Zig comptime won't do

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.

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.

If I understand TFA correctly, the author claims that D’s approach is actually different: https://matklad.github.io/2025/04/19/things-zig-comptime-won...

“In contrast, there’s absolutely no facility for dynamic source code generation in Zig. You just can’t do that, the feature isn’t! [sic]

Zig has a completely different feature, partial evaluation/specialization, which, none the less, is enough to cover most of use-cases for dynamic code generation.”

The partial evaluation/specialization is accomplished in D using a template. The example from the link:

    fn f(comptime x: u32, y: u32) u32 {
        if (x == 0) return y + 1;
        if (x == 1) return y * 2;
        return y;
    }

and in D:

    uint f(uint x)(uint y) {
        if (x == 0) return y + 1;
        if (x == 1) return y * 2;
        return y;
    }

The two parameter lists make it a function template, the first set of parameters are the template parameters, which are compile time. The second set are the runtime parameters. The compile time parameters can also be types, and aliased symbols.

Using a different type vs. a different syntax can be an important usability consideration, particularly since D also has templates and other features, where Zig provides only the comptime type for all of them. Homogeneity can also be a nice usability win, though there are downsides as well.

Zig's use of comptime in a function argument makes it a template :-/

I bet if you use such a function with different comptime arguments, compile it, and dump the assembler you'll see that function appearing multiple times, each with somewhat different code generated for it.

> Zig's use of comptime in a function argument makes it a template :-/

That you can draw an isomorphism between two things does not mean they are ergonomically identical.

When we're responding to quite valid points about other languages having essentially the same features as Zig with subjective claims about ergonomics, the idea that Zig comptime is "revolutionary" is looking awfully flimsy. I agree with Walter: Zig isn't doing anything novel. Picking some features while leaving others out is something that every language does; if doing that is enough to make a language "revolutionary", then every language is revolutionary. The reality is a lot simpler and more boring: for Zig enthusiasts, the set of features that Zig has appeals to them. Just like enthusiasts of every programming language.

>for Zig enthusiasts, the set of features that Zig has appeals to them. Just like enthusiasts of every programming language.

I find it rather amusing that it's a Java and a Rust enthusiast who are extolling Zig approach here! I am not particularly well read with respect to programming languages, but I don't recall many languages which define generic pair as

    fn Pair(A: type, B: type) type {
        return struct { fst: A, snd: B };
    }

The only one that comes to mind is 1ML, and I'd argue that it is also revolutionary.