←back to thread

Open-source Zig book

(www.zigbook.net)
692 points rudedogg | 1 comments | 16 Nov 25 19:44 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
poly2it ◴[17 Nov 25 06:14 UTC] No.45951222[source]▶
> Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.

I'm not sure what they expect, but to me Zig looks very much like C with a modern standard lib and slightly different syntax. This isn't groundbreaking, not a thought paradigm which should be that novel to most system engineers like for example OCaml could be. Stuff like this alienates people who want a technical justification for the use of a language.

replies(10): >>45951231 #>>45951258 #>>45951302 #>>45951388 #>>45951755 #>>45951799 #>>45951814 #>>45951964 #>>45952563 #>>45952740 #
userbinator ◴[17 Nov 25 06:17 UTC] No.45951231[source]▶
For those who actually want to learn languages which are "fundamentally changing how you think about software", I'd recommend the Lisp family and APL family.
replies(4): >>45951356 #>>45951479 #>>45951521 #>>45952626 #
zwnow ◴[17 Nov 25 06:51 UTC] No.45951356[source]▶
I'd also throw Erlang/Elixir out there. And I really wished Elm wasn't such a trainwreck of a project...
replies(2): >>45951854 #>>45952573 #
matu3ba ◴[17 Nov 25 08:38 UTC] No.45951854[source]▶
What is the most optimal Erlang/Elixir you can think of regarding standardized effect systems for recording non-determinism, replaying and reversible computing? How comparable are performance numbers of Erlang/Elixir with Java and wasm?
replies(1): >>45951883 #
1. zwnow ◴[17 Nov 25 08:44 UTC] No.45951883{3}[source]▶
I'd recommend asking the Elixir community about this as I didn't even understand your question. I am by no means a professional with Erlang/Elixir. I threw it out there because these language force you to think differently compared to common OOP languages.