←back to thread

Open-source Zig book

(www.zigbook.net)
692 points rudedogg | 2 comments | 16 Nov 25 19:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.037s | 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 #
wolvesechoes ◴[17 Nov 25 08:18 UTC] No.45951755[source]▶
Zig community really tries to match Rust one in terms of cult resemblance.
replies(2): >>45951763 #>>45951858 #
IshKebab ◴[17 Nov 25 08:21 UTC] No.45951763[source]▶
Did it occur to you that Rust and Zig might actually be very good?
replies(1): >>45956138 #
wolvesechoes ◴[17 Nov 25 18:03 UTC] No.45956138{3}[source]▶
Oh, they are. Like a multitude of other languages.
replies(1): >>45958663 #
1. IshKebab ◴[17 Nov 25 21:40 UTC] No.45958663{4}[source]▶
There aren't a multitude of other languages that compete with Rust and Zig in the "zero cost abstraction" domain. There's like, Ada... and D sort of.

Rust and Zig aren't merely very good, they are better than the alternatives when you need a "zero cost abstraction" option.

But sure, go ahead and dismiss it as a cult if it makes you feel better. I bet you were one of the people who dismissed the iPhone as "just apple fanbois" back in the day. Won't amount to anything.

replies(1): >>45962887 #
2. wolvesechoes ◴[18 Nov 25 08:55 UTC] No.45962887[source]▶
But the concern in this thread wasn't that people consider Zig or Rust good, so don't try to frame it this way, because it is dishonest.

Original quote:

> [Learning Zig] is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.

This is not the same. Something like it could be said about Lisp, Forth, Prolog, Smalltalk, Fractran or APL, even Brainfuck, not Rust or Zig. No, thinking about object lifetimes or allocators is not "fundamental change" in how to think about software. It is bread and butter of thinking about software. Therefore I believe this is cultish behavior - you assign extraordinary properties to something rather dull and not that much different from other mainstream languages.

> I bet you were one of the people who dismissed the iPhone as "just apple fanbois" back in the day

Wrong. I still dismiss people praising Apple, swallowing some bullshit about "vision" etc. as fanboys.