Using Zig to Provide Stack Traces on Kernel Panic for a Bare Bones OS

Re:Using Zig to Provide Stack Traces on Kernel Panic for a B... by coldtea on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:40AM (#18606610)

A little over the top with this criticism?

Or, the other one: lack of affine/linear types is "inexcusable", really?

As if these are so mainstream that any new language should have them? It's a new language, still in development, use it or not. Zig doesn't want to be a dumpster for trendy PL concepts. It has been designed to be a safer and friendlier C, not a simpler Haskell or Agda.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using Zig to Provide Stack Traces on Kernel Panic for a B... by vmchale on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @09:43AM (#18608561)

> Zig doesn't want to be a dumpster for trendy PL concepts. It has been designed to be a safer and friendlier C

Exactly why the project is pointless. It doesn't offer enough beyond C for there to exist any incentive to switch. I would add that affine types are not simply a "trendy PL concept" given that Rust has used them to great effect.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using Zig to Provide Stack Traces on Kernel Panic for a B... by floatboth on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @05:44AM (#18607159)

> given the current offering

Current offering being of course Rust.

Rust isn't a "simpler Agda" either. It is a safer C/C++ – as in bare metal capable, no GC, natively compiled… and affine types is what makes the safety possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using Zig to Provide Stack Traces on Kernel Panic for a B... by vmchale on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @02:12PM (#18611426)

> Rust isn't a "simpler Agda" either.

Calling Rust a "simpler Agda" is a bit insane. Rust simply has a sensible, current type system. Agda is full dependent types.

[ Parent | on HN ]