Why Zig When There Is Already CPP, D, and Rust? (2017)

Re:Why Zig When There Is Already CPP, D, and Rust? (2017) by kibwen on Monday October 15, 2018 @01:35AM (#18217570)

> Zig has awesome metaprogramming support

I'm not sure how to reconcile this statement with the following claim from the linked article: "Zig has no macros and no metaprogramming yet still is powerful enough to express complex programs in a clear, non-repetitive way." Not only does it claim that Zig has no metaprogramming, it suggests that it sees metaprogramming as undesirable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Zig When There Is Already CPP, D, and Rust? (2017) by mborch on Monday October 15, 2018 @02:38AM (#18217834)

What it does have is compile-time parameters where you can bind a type variable during compilation:

  fn max(comptime T: type, a: T, b: T) T {
      if (T == bool) {
          return a or b;
      } else if (a > b) {
          return a;
      } else {
          return b;
      }
  }

The type variable isn't used at run-time.

[ Parent | on HN ]