←back to thread

Open-source Zig book

(www.zigbook.net)
692 points rudedogg | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.263s | source
Show context
mendelmaleh ◴[] No.45948849[source]
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.

I think it's time to have a badge for non LLM content, and avoid the rest.

replies(8): >>45948872 #>>45949081 #>>45949082 #>>45949278 #>>45949330 #>>45949672 #>>45949992 #>>45951025 #
James_K ◴[] No.45949672[source]
> Most programming languages hide complexity from you—they abstract away memory management, mask control flow with implicit operations, and shield you from the machine beneath. This feels simple at first, but eventually you hit a wall. You need to understand why something is slow, where a crash happened, or how to squeeze every ounce of performance from your hardware. Suddenly, the abstractions that helped you get started are now in your way.

> Zig takes a different path. It reveals complexity—and then gives you the tools to master it.

> This book will take you from Hello, world! to building systems that cross-compile to any platform, manage memory with surgical precision, and generate code at compile time. You will learn not just how Zig works, but why it works the way it does. Every allocation will be explicit. Every control path will be visible. Every abstraction will be precise, not vague.

But sadly people like the prompter of this book will lie and pretend to have written things themselves that they did not. First three paragraphs by the way, and a bingo for every sign of AI.

replies(3): >>45949699 #>>45950097 #>>45951051 #
Brian_K_White ◴[] No.45951051[source]
Right in those same first few paragraphs... "...hiding something from you. Because they are."

Would most LLMs have written that invalid fragment sentence "Because they are." ?

I don't think you have enough to go on to make this accusation.

replies(1): >>45951126 #
assbuttbuttass ◴[] No.45951126[source]
Yes, that fragment in particular screams LLM to me. It's the exact kind of meaningless yet overly dramatic slop that LLMs love
replies(1): >>45952477 #
1. ◴[] No.45952477[source]