Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang

Re:Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang by stjohnswarts on Tuesday March 24, 2020 @08:48PM (#22680798)

I know it's not as complicated as C++ but it sure seems like they're in a rush to get there :) . Modern (post c++14) covers most of my criticisms of c++ for my daily driver. I still poke at Rust because I really love statically typed languages :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang by yarrel on Tuesday March 24, 2020 @09:51PM (#22681256)

I've been very surprised by Rust's complexity. Some of it seems to be being hidden over time (as well as adding new features) but its syntax at any given moment is generally more complex than C++.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang by saagarjha on Tuesday March 24, 2020 @11:50PM (#22681791)

Really? I would consider its syntax to be of similar complexity but of higher consistency. What parts of it do you find complex?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang by pjmlp on Wednesday March 25, 2020 @02:44AM (#22682494)

When you happen to have generics coupled with lifetime annotations for example.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang by throwaway17_17 on Wednesday March 25, 2020 @01:17AM (#22682125)

I’m not being contrarian, but I have only been following Zig in passing. Can you give a few example of the increase in complexity, I am genuinely curious. Zig seems, to my eyes at least, to have done an admirable job of remaining simple when compared to the behemoth that is C++, of any vintage (but especially post C++03).

[ Parent | on HN ]