Re:Why Zig When There Is Already CPP, D, and Rust? (2017)
by blt on Sunday October 14, 2018 @06:45PM
(#18215986)
Everything in your second sentence is true, but it seems like LLVM has been a huge boost. I think a lot more programmers are comfortable with parsing and ASTs than they are with the x86 instruction set. Not having to write IL->CPU codegen or peephole optimizations significantly lowers barrier for entry to compiled PL development.
(I say this as just an observer, having written interpreters but no compiled languages.)
Re:Why Zig When There Is Already CPP, D, and Rust? (2017)
by andrewflnr on Sunday October 14, 2018 @06:19PM
(#18215837)
But it's getting easier to just implement a language at all. That might be all you need to hit HN. No one said anything about "worthwhile" ones.
Re:Why Zig When There Is Already CPP, D, and Rust? (2017)
by mmirate on Sunday October 14, 2018 @11:24PM
(#18217201)
That says a lot more about HN than about anything else...
Re:Why Zig When There Is Already CPP, D, and Rust? (2017)
by andrewflnr on Sunday October 14, 2018 @11:42PM
(#18217262)
It says that we look for more in an idea than pure utility, that cleverness and beauty also count. That's a good thing.
Re:Why Zig When There Is Already CPP, D, and Rust? (2017)
by mmirate on Monday October 15, 2018 @07:28PM
(#18225019)
> That's a good thing.
Maybe, maybe not, but luckily that question's not very important. Here's what is:
Where is the cleverness and beauty in Yet Another Boring LLVM Frontend(tm)? Zig and Rust are more than that, I'll readily grant - but that description does fall under the umbrella of "implementing a language".
The barrier to entry is higher, the expectations on the size of the standard library are higher, the expected quality of tools is higher.